Article

As a 2020 graduate, my medical school experience was largely untouched by the coronavirus. However, when I transitioned to residency, the world was 4 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and I was required to wear an N95 mask. Just as I started calling myself Dr. Petteruti, I stopped seeing my patients’ entire face, and they stopped seeing mine. In this article, I share my reflections on wearing a mask during residency.

Even after 3 years of daily practice, I have found that wearing a mask brings an acute awareness of my face. As a community physician, the spheres of personal and public life intersect as I treat patients. Learning to navigate this is an important and shared experience across many community-based residency programs. However, during the first few years of residency, I have been able to shop at a local grocery store or eat at a nearby restaurant without any concerns of being recognized by a patient. Until recently, my patients had never seen my face. That has now changed.

For a new intern, a mask can be a savior. It can hide most of what is on your face from your patient. It is remarkable how the brain fills in the gaps of the visage and, by extension, aspects of the person. Many times, I was thankful to have my morning yawn or facial expression covered during provoking conversations with patients. Furthermore, masks gave me an opportunity to examine my own reactions, emotions, affect, and countertransference of each interaction on my own time.

The mask mandate also protected some features that illustrated my youth. For the patient, a mask can add a dry, clinical distance to the physician, often emitting a professional interpretation to the encounter. For the physician, the mask serves as a concrete barrier to the otherwise effortless acts of observation. Early in my career, I had to set reminders to have patients who were taking antipsychotic medications remove their masks to assess for tardive dyskinesia. Sometimes this surprised the patient, who was hesitant to expose themselves physically and psychologically. Alternatively, mask wearing has proved to be an additional data point on some patients, such as those with disorganized behavior. If the mask is located on the patient’s head, chin, or eyes, or is otherwise inappropriately placed, this provides the clinician with supplemental information.

After spending most of my third year of residency in an outpatient office diligently learning how to build a sturdy therapeutic patient alliance, the mask mandate was lifted. Patients’ transference began to change right before my newly bared face. People often relate age to wisdom and experience, so my lack of age—and thus, possible perceived lack of knowledge—became glaringly apparent. During our initial encounters without masks, patients I had known for most of the year began discussing their symptoms and treatments with more hesitancy. My established patients suddenly had a noticeable change in the intensity of their eye contact. Some even asked if I had cut my hair or what had changed about my appearance since our previous visit. This change in affect and behavior offers a unique experience for the resident; renovating the patient-doctor relationship based on the physician’s appearance.

As psychiatrists, we would generally assume mask wearing has an undesirable effect on the therapeutic alliance and increases skewed inferences in our evaluations. This held true for my experience in residency. In psychotherapy, we work to help patients remove their own metaphorical “masks” of defense and security in self-exploration. However, as young physicians, rather than creating barriers between us and our patients, the mask mandate seemed to have created a sense of credibility in our practice and trustworthiness in our decisions.

Some questions remain. As clinicians, what are we missing when we can only see our patient’s eyes and forehead? How will the COVID-19 pandemic affect my training and career as a psychiatrist? These may remain unanswered for my generation of trainees for some time, as society will look back and contemplate this period for decades. Though we entered our career in uncertain times, with an increased risk of morbidity and death and high demand for proper personal protective equipment, we were and still are thankful for our masks and for the limited infection exposure afforded by the nature of our specialty.

As a 2020 graduate, my medical school experience was largely untouched by the coronavirus. However, when I transitioned to residency, the world was 4 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and I was required to wear an N95 mask. Just as I started calling myself Dr. Petteruti, I stopped seeing my patients’ entire face, and they stopped seeing mine. In this article, I share my reflections on wearing a mask during residency.

Even after 3 years of daily practice, I have found that wearing a mask brings an acute awareness of my face. As a community physician, the spheres of personal and public life intersect as I treat patients. Learning to navigate this is an important and shared experience across many community-based residency programs. However, during the first few years of residency, I have been able to shop at a local grocery store or eat at a nearby restaurant without any concerns of being recognized by a patient. Until recently, my patients had never seen my face. That has now changed.

For a new intern, a mask can be a savior. It can hide most of what is on your face from your patient. It is remarkable how the brain fills in the gaps of the visage and, by extension, aspects of the person. Many times, I was thankful to have my morning yawn or facial expression covered during provoking conversations with patients. Furthermore, masks gave me an opportunity to examine my own reactions, emotions, affect, and countertransference of each interaction on my own time.

The mask mandate also protected some features that illustrated my youth. For the patient, a mask can add a dry, clinical distance to the physician, often emitting a professional interpretation to the encounter. For the physician, the mask serves as a concrete barrier to the otherwise effortless acts of observation. Early in my career, I had to set reminders to have patients who were taking antipsychotic medications remove their masks to assess for tardive dyskinesia. Sometimes this surprised the patient, who was hesitant to expose themselves physically and psychologically. Alternatively, mask wearing has proved to be an additional data point on some patients, such as those with disorganized behavior. If the mask is located on the patient’s head, chin, or eyes, or is otherwise inappropriately placed, this provides the clinician with supplemental information.

After spending most of my third year of residency in an outpatient office diligently learning how to build a sturdy therapeutic patient alliance, the mask mandate was lifted. Patients’ transference began to change right before my newly bared face. People often relate age to wisdom and experience, so my lack of age—and thus, possible perceived lack of knowledge—became glaringly apparent. During our initial encounters without masks, patients I had known for most of the year began discussing their symptoms and treatments with more hesitancy. My established patients suddenly had a noticeable change in the intensity of their eye contact. Some even asked if I had cut my hair or what had changed about my appearance since our previous visit. This change in affect and behavior offers a unique experience for the resident; renovating the patient-doctor relationship based on the physician’s appearance.

As psychiatrists, we would generally assume mask wearing has an undesirable effect on the therapeutic alliance and increases skewed inferences in our evaluations. This held true for my experience in residency. In psychotherapy, we work to help patients remove their own metaphorical “masks” of defense and security in self-exploration. However, as young physicians, rather than creating barriers between us and our patients, the mask mandate seemed to have created a sense of credibility in our practice and trustworthiness in our decisions.

Some questions remain. As clinicians, what are we missing when we can only see our patient’s eyes and forehead? How will the COVID-19 pandemic affect my training and career as a psychiatrist? These may remain unanswered for my generation of trainees for some time, as society will look back and contemplate this period for decades. Though we entered our career in uncertain times, with an increased risk of morbidity and death and high demand for proper personal protective equipment, we were and still are thankful for our masks and for the limited infection exposure afforded by the nature of our specialty.

As a 2020 graduate, my medical school experience was largely untouched by the coronavirus. However, when I transitioned to residency, the world was 4 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and I was required to wear an N95 mask. Just as I started calling myself Dr. Petteruti, I stopped seeing my patients’ entire face, and they stopped seeing mine. In this article, I share my reflections on wearing a mask during residency.

Even after 3 years of daily practice, I have found that wearing a mask brings an acute awareness of my face. As a community physician, the spheres of personal and public life intersect as I treat patients. Learning to navigate this is an important and shared experience across many community-based residency programs. However, during the first few years of residency, I have been able to shop at a local grocery store or eat at a nearby restaurant without any concerns of being recognized by a patient. Until recently, my patients had never seen my face. That has now changed.

For a new intern, a mask can be a savior. It can hide most of what is on your face from your patient. It is remarkable how the brain fills in the gaps of the visage and, by extension, aspects of the person. Many times, I was thankful to have my morning yawn or facial expression covered during provoking conversations with patients. Furthermore, masks gave me an opportunity to examine my own reactions, emotions, affect, and countertransference of each interaction on my own time.

The mask mandate also protected some features that illustrated my youth. For the patient, a mask can add a dry, clinical distance to the physician, often emitting a professional interpretation to the encounter. For the physician, the mask serves as a concrete barrier to the otherwise effortless acts of observation. Early in my career, I had to set reminders to have patients who were taking antipsychotic medications remove their masks to assess for tardive dyskinesia. Sometimes this surprised the patient, who was hesitant to expose themselves physically and psychologically. Alternatively, mask wearing has proved to be an additional data point on some patients, such as those with disorganized behavior. If the mask is located on the patient’s head, chin, or eyes, or is otherwise inappropriately placed, this provides the clinician with supplemental information.

After spending most of my third year of residency in an outpatient office diligently learning how to build a sturdy therapeutic patient alliance, the mask mandate was lifted. Patients’ transference began to change right before my newly bared face. People often relate age to wisdom and experience, so my lack of age—and thus, possible perceived lack of knowledge—became glaringly apparent. During our initial encounters without masks, patients I had known for most of the year began discussing their symptoms and treatments with more hesitancy. My established patients suddenly had a noticeable change in the intensity of their eye contact. Some even asked if I had cut my hair or what had changed about my appearance since our previous visit. This change in affect and behavior offers a unique experience for the resident; renovating the patient-doctor relationship based on the physician’s appearance.

As psychiatrists, we would generally assume mask wearing has an undesirable effect on the therapeutic alliance and increases skewed inferences in our evaluations. This held true for my experience in residency. In psychotherapy, we work to help patients remove their own metaphorical “masks” of defense and security in self-exploration. However, as young physicians, rather than creating barriers between us and our patients, the mask mandate seemed to have created a sense of credibility in our practice and trustworthiness in our decisions.

Some questions remain. As clinicians, what are we missing when we can only see our patient’s eyes and forehead? How will the COVID-19 pandemic affect my training and career as a psychiatrist? These may remain unanswered for my generation of trainees for some time, as society will look back and contemplate this period for decades. Though we entered our career in uncertain times, with an increased risk of morbidity and death and high demand for proper personal protective equipment, we were and still are thankful for our masks and for the limited infection exposure afforded by the nature of our specialty.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine is commonly used to treat several psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder (BD) and insomnia. In this case report, we discuss a patient with a history of unipolar depression and initial signs of mania who experienced an exacerbation of manic symptoms following administration of low-dose quetiapine. This case underscores the need for careful monitoring of patients receiving quetiapine, especially at lower doses, and the potential limitations of its efficacy in controlling manic symptoms.

Depressed with racing thoughts

Mr. X, age 58, is an Army veteran who lives with his wife of 29 years and works as a contractor. He has a history of depression and a suicide attempt 10 years ago by self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, which left him with a bullet lodged in his sinus cavity and residual dysarthria after tongue surgery. After the suicide attempt, Mr. X was medically hospitalized, but not psychiatrically hospitalized. Shortly after, he self-discontinued all psychotropic medications and follow-up.

Mr. X has no other medical history and takes no other medications or supplements. His family history includes a mother with schizoaffective disorder, 1 brother with BD, and another brother with developmental delay.

Mr. X remained euthymic until his brother died. Soon after, he began to experience low mood, heightened anxiety, racing thoughts, tearfulness, and mild insomnia. He was prescribed quetiapine 25 mg/d at bedtime and instructed to titrate up to 50 mg/d.

Ten days later, Mr. X was brought to the hospital by his wife, who reported that after starting quetiapine, her husband began to act erratically. He had disorganized and racing thoughts, loose associations, labile affect, hyperactivity/restlessness, and was not sleeping. In the morning before presenting to the hospital, Mr. X had gone to work, laid down on the floor, began mumbling to himself, and would not respond to coworkers. Upon evaluation, Mr. X was noted to have pressured speech, disorganized speech, delusions, anxiety, and hallucinations. A CT scan of his head was normal, and a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, B12, folate, and hemoglobin A1c were within normal limits. Mr. X’s vitamin D level was low at 22 ng/mL, and a syphilis screen was negative.

Mr. X was admitted to the hospital for his safety. The treatment team discontinued quetiapine and started risperidone 3 mg twice a day for psychotic symptoms and mood stabilization. At the time of discharge 7 days later, Mr. X was no longer experiencing any hallucinations or delusions, his thought process was linear and goal-directed, his mood was stable, and his insomnia had improved. Based on the temporal relationship between the initiation of quetiapine and the onset of Mr. X’s manic symptoms, along with an absence of organic causes, the treatment team suspected Mr. X had experienced a worsening of manic symptoms induced by quetiapine. Before starting quetiapine, he had presented with an initial manic symptom of racing thoughts.

At his next outpatient appointment, Mr. X exhibited significant akathisia. The treatment team initiated propranolol 20 mg twice a day but Mr. X did not experience much improvement. Risperidone was reduced to 1 mg twice a day and Mr. X was started on clonazepam 0.5 mg twice a day. The akathisia resolved. The treatment team decided to discontinue all medications and observe Mr. X for any recurrence of symptoms. One year after his manic episode. Mr. X remained euthymic. He was able to resume full-time work and began psychotherapy to process the grief over the loss of his brother.

Quetiapine’s unique profile

This case sheds light on the potential limitations of quetiapine, especially at lower doses, for managing manic symptoms. Quetiapine exhibits antidepressant effects, even at doses as low as 50 mg/d.¹ At higher doses, quetiapine acts as an antagonist at serotonin (5-HT1A and 5-HT2A), dopamine (D1 and D2), histamine H1, and adrenergic receptors.² At doses <300 mg/d, there is an absence of dopamine receptor blockade and a higher affinity for 5-HT2A receptors, which could explain why higher doses are generally necessary for treating mania and psychotic symptoms.^3-5 High 5-HT2A antagonism may disinhibit the dopaminergic system and paradoxically increase dopaminergic activity, which could be the mechanism responsible for lack of control of manic symptoms with low doses of quetiapine.² Another possible explanation is that the metabolite of quetiapine, N-desalkylquetiapine, acts as a norepine­phrine reuptake blocker and partial 5-HT1Aantagonist, which acts as an antidepressant, and antidepressants are known to induce mania in vulnerable patients.⁴

The antimanic property of most antipsychotics (except possibly clozapine) is attributed to their D2 antagonistic potency. Because quetiapine is among the weaker D2 antagonists, its inability to prevent the progression of mania, especially at 50 mg/d, is not unexpected. Mr. X’s subsequent need for a stronger D2 antagonist—risperidone—at a significant dose further supports this observation. A common misconception is that quetiapine’s sedating effects make it effective for treating mania, but that is not the case. Clinicians should be cautious when prescribing quetiapine, especially at lower doses, to patients who exhibit signs of mania. Given the potential risk, clinicians should consider alternative treatments before resorting to low-dose quetiapine for insomnia. Regular monitoring for manic symptoms is crucial for all patients receiving quetiapine. If patients present with signs of mania or hypomania, a therapeutic dose range of 600 to 800 mg/d is recommended.⁶

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine is commonly used to treat several psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder (BD) and insomnia. In this case report, we discuss a patient with a history of unipolar depression and initial signs of mania who experienced an exacerbation of manic symptoms following administration of low-dose quetiapine. This case underscores the need for careful monitoring of patients receiving quetiapine, especially at lower doses, and the potential limitations of its efficacy in controlling manic symptoms.

Depressed with racing thoughts

Mr. X, age 58, is an Army veteran who lives with his wife of 29 years and works as a contractor. He has a history of depression and a suicide attempt 10 years ago by self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, which left him with a bullet lodged in his sinus cavity and residual dysarthria after tongue surgery. After the suicide attempt, Mr. X was medically hospitalized, but not psychiatrically hospitalized. Shortly after, he self-discontinued all psychotropic medications and follow-up.

Mr. X has no other medical history and takes no other medications or supplements. His family history includes a mother with schizoaffective disorder, 1 brother with BD, and another brother with developmental delay.

Mr. X remained euthymic until his brother died. Soon after, he began to experience low mood, heightened anxiety, racing thoughts, tearfulness, and mild insomnia. He was prescribed quetiapine 25 mg/d at bedtime and instructed to titrate up to 50 mg/d.

Ten days later, Mr. X was brought to the hospital by his wife, who reported that after starting quetiapine, her husband began to act erratically. He had disorganized and racing thoughts, loose associations, labile affect, hyperactivity/restlessness, and was not sleeping. In the morning before presenting to the hospital, Mr. X had gone to work, laid down on the floor, began mumbling to himself, and would not respond to coworkers. Upon evaluation, Mr. X was noted to have pressured speech, disorganized speech, delusions, anxiety, and hallucinations. A CT scan of his head was normal, and a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, B12, folate, and hemoglobin A1c were within normal limits. Mr. X’s vitamin D level was low at 22 ng/mL, and a syphilis screen was negative.

Mr. X was admitted to the hospital for his safety. The treatment team discontinued quetiapine and started risperidone 3 mg twice a day for psychotic symptoms and mood stabilization. At the time of discharge 7 days later, Mr. X was no longer experiencing any hallucinations or delusions, his thought process was linear and goal-directed, his mood was stable, and his insomnia had improved. Based on the temporal relationship between the initiation of quetiapine and the onset of Mr. X’s manic symptoms, along with an absence of organic causes, the treatment team suspected Mr. X had experienced a worsening of manic symptoms induced by quetiapine. Before starting quetiapine, he had presented with an initial manic symptom of racing thoughts.

At his next outpatient appointment, Mr. X exhibited significant akathisia. The treatment team initiated propranolol 20 mg twice a day but Mr. X did not experience much improvement. Risperidone was reduced to 1 mg twice a day and Mr. X was started on clonazepam 0.5 mg twice a day. The akathisia resolved. The treatment team decided to discontinue all medications and observe Mr. X for any recurrence of symptoms. One year after his manic episode. Mr. X remained euthymic. He was able to resume full-time work and began psychotherapy to process the grief over the loss of his brother.

Quetiapine’s unique profile

This case sheds light on the potential limitations of quetiapine, especially at lower doses, for managing manic symptoms. Quetiapine exhibits antidepressant effects, even at doses as low as 50 mg/d.¹ At higher doses, quetiapine acts as an antagonist at serotonin (5-HT1A and 5-HT2A), dopamine (D1 and D2), histamine H1, and adrenergic receptors.² At doses <300 mg/d, there is an absence of dopamine receptor blockade and a higher affinity for 5-HT2A receptors, which could explain why higher doses are generally necessary for treating mania and psychotic symptoms.^3-5 High 5-HT2A antagonism may disinhibit the dopaminergic system and paradoxically increase dopaminergic activity, which could be the mechanism responsible for lack of control of manic symptoms with low doses of quetiapine.² Another possible explanation is that the metabolite of quetiapine, N-desalkylquetiapine, acts as a norepine­phrine reuptake blocker and partial 5-HT1Aantagonist, which acts as an antidepressant, and antidepressants are known to induce mania in vulnerable patients.⁴

The antimanic property of most antipsychotics (except possibly clozapine) is attributed to their D2 antagonistic potency. Because quetiapine is among the weaker D2 antagonists, its inability to prevent the progression of mania, especially at 50 mg/d, is not unexpected. Mr. X’s subsequent need for a stronger D2 antagonist—risperidone—at a significant dose further supports this observation. A common misconception is that quetiapine’s sedating effects make it effective for treating mania, but that is not the case. Clinicians should be cautious when prescribing quetiapine, especially at lower doses, to patients who exhibit signs of mania. Given the potential risk, clinicians should consider alternative treatments before resorting to low-dose quetiapine for insomnia. Regular monitoring for manic symptoms is crucial for all patients receiving quetiapine. If patients present with signs of mania or hypomania, a therapeutic dose range of 600 to 800 mg/d is recommended.⁶

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine is commonly used to treat several psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder (BD) and insomnia. In this case report, we discuss a patient with a history of unipolar depression and initial signs of mania who experienced an exacerbation of manic symptoms following administration of low-dose quetiapine. This case underscores the need for careful monitoring of patients receiving quetiapine, especially at lower doses, and the potential limitations of its efficacy in controlling manic symptoms.

Depressed with racing thoughts

Mr. X, age 58, is an Army veteran who lives with his wife of 29 years and works as a contractor. He has a history of depression and a suicide attempt 10 years ago by self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head, which left him with a bullet lodged in his sinus cavity and residual dysarthria after tongue surgery. After the suicide attempt, Mr. X was medically hospitalized, but not psychiatrically hospitalized. Shortly after, he self-discontinued all psychotropic medications and follow-up.

Mr. X has no other medical history and takes no other medications or supplements. His family history includes a mother with schizoaffective disorder, 1 brother with BD, and another brother with developmental delay.

Mr. X remained euthymic until his brother died. Soon after, he began to experience low mood, heightened anxiety, racing thoughts, tearfulness, and mild insomnia. He was prescribed quetiapine 25 mg/d at bedtime and instructed to titrate up to 50 mg/d.

Ten days later, Mr. X was brought to the hospital by his wife, who reported that after starting quetiapine, her husband began to act erratically. He had disorganized and racing thoughts, loose associations, labile affect, hyperactivity/restlessness, and was not sleeping. In the morning before presenting to the hospital, Mr. X had gone to work, laid down on the floor, began mumbling to himself, and would not respond to coworkers. Upon evaluation, Mr. X was noted to have pressured speech, disorganized speech, delusions, anxiety, and hallucinations. A CT scan of his head was normal, and a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, thyroid-stimulating hormone, B12, folate, and hemoglobin A1c were within normal limits. Mr. X’s vitamin D level was low at 22 ng/mL, and a syphilis screen was negative.

Mr. X was admitted to the hospital for his safety. The treatment team discontinued quetiapine and started risperidone 3 mg twice a day for psychotic symptoms and mood stabilization. At the time of discharge 7 days later, Mr. X was no longer experiencing any hallucinations or delusions, his thought process was linear and goal-directed, his mood was stable, and his insomnia had improved. Based on the temporal relationship between the initiation of quetiapine and the onset of Mr. X’s manic symptoms, along with an absence of organic causes, the treatment team suspected Mr. X had experienced a worsening of manic symptoms induced by quetiapine. Before starting quetiapine, he had presented with an initial manic symptom of racing thoughts.

At his next outpatient appointment, Mr. X exhibited significant akathisia. The treatment team initiated propranolol 20 mg twice a day but Mr. X did not experience much improvement. Risperidone was reduced to 1 mg twice a day and Mr. X was started on clonazepam 0.5 mg twice a day. The akathisia resolved. The treatment team decided to discontinue all medications and observe Mr. X for any recurrence of symptoms. One year after his manic episode. Mr. X remained euthymic. He was able to resume full-time work and began psychotherapy to process the grief over the loss of his brother.

Quetiapine’s unique profile

This case sheds light on the potential limitations of quetiapine, especially at lower doses, for managing manic symptoms. Quetiapine exhibits antidepressant effects, even at doses as low as 50 mg/d.¹ At higher doses, quetiapine acts as an antagonist at serotonin (5-HT1A and 5-HT2A), dopamine (D1 and D2), histamine H1, and adrenergic receptors.² At doses <300 mg/d, there is an absence of dopamine receptor blockade and a higher affinity for 5-HT2A receptors, which could explain why higher doses are generally necessary for treating mania and psychotic symptoms.^3-5 High 5-HT2A antagonism may disinhibit the dopaminergic system and paradoxically increase dopaminergic activity, which could be the mechanism responsible for lack of control of manic symptoms with low doses of quetiapine.² Another possible explanation is that the metabolite of quetiapine, N-desalkylquetiapine, acts as a norepine­phrine reuptake blocker and partial 5-HT1Aantagonist, which acts as an antidepressant, and antidepressants are known to induce mania in vulnerable patients.⁴

The antimanic property of most antipsychotics (except possibly clozapine) is attributed to their D2 antagonistic potency. Because quetiapine is among the weaker D2 antagonists, its inability to prevent the progression of mania, especially at 50 mg/d, is not unexpected. Mr. X’s subsequent need for a stronger D2 antagonist—risperidone—at a significant dose further supports this observation. A common misconception is that quetiapine’s sedating effects make it effective for treating mania, but that is not the case. Clinicians should be cautious when prescribing quetiapine, especially at lower doses, to patients who exhibit signs of mania. Given the potential risk, clinicians should consider alternative treatments before resorting to low-dose quetiapine for insomnia. Regular monitoring for manic symptoms is crucial for all patients receiving quetiapine. If patients present with signs of mania or hypomania, a therapeutic dose range of 600 to 800 mg/d is recommended.⁶

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

Working closely with individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), we’ve observed a worrisome trend of patients leaving the hospital against medical advice (AMA). This issue is not only prevalent in psychiatric settings, but also in emergency departments, medical and surgical floors, and even intensive care units.¹

Compared to individuals without such disorders, individuals with SUDs—particularly those with opioid use disorders—are up to 3 times more likely to leave the hospital AMA.^1,2 Leaving AMA can lead to multiple complications, including an increased risk of readmission, suboptimal treatment outcomes, and an increased use of health care resources.^1-3

It is critical to understand why patients elect to leave a hospital AMA. In a qualitative study, Simon et al¹ found that individuals with SUDs often leave AMA due to uncontrolled withdrawal symptoms and pain, perceived stigma and discrimination, and dissatisfaction with care. Predictors of patients leaving the hospital AMA include the severity of their drug dependence and previous negative treatment experiences.⁴ A systematic review found housing instability and a lack of social support influence an individual’s decision to leave AMA.⁵

Recommendations for managing patients who leave AMA

Enhancing your understanding of withdrawal symptoms may allow you to offer patients more effective symptom control, possibly with methadone or buprenorphine.² Injectable opioid agonist treatment may also help to retain a patient in care. In a case report, a 47-year-old man with a severe opioid use disorder who had left the hospital AMA due to uncontrolled opioid withdrawal was readmitted, treated with IV hydromorphone, and enrolled in ongoing community injectable opioid agonist treatment.⁶

Clinicians must address the stigma and discrimination patients with SUDs often face in health care institutions. Additional training for clinicians to improve their understanding of these disorders and foster a more compassionate and nonjudgmental approach to care may be beneficial.

Like most medicolegal conflicts, leaving AMA is often a clinical and interpersonal problem disguised as a legal one. When assessing these patients’ decision-making capacity, we often find they are angry and dissatisfied with the care they have (or have not) received. The most useful intervention may be to restore communication between the patient and their treatment team.

Even after a patient leaves AMA, the treatment team may experience countertransference issues, such as heightened emotional reactions or biases, that could compromise their clinical judgment. Addressing these dynamics may require team debriefings, supervision, or further training in managing transference and countertransference, particularly since patients who leave AMA may return for subsequent care.⁷

Integrated care models, which feature close collaboration between clinicians from different specialties, can help ensure that a patient’s diverse health needs are met and reduce the likelihood of them leaving AMA. Integrated care models may be particularly effective for patients with co-occurring conditions such as HIV and SUDs.⁸

Implementing these recommendations can be challenging. Barriers to addressing AMA departures span several domains, including patient-specific barriers (eg, stigma and discrimination), clinical barriers (eg, lack of resources and training for clinicians), institutional hurdles (eg, systemic inefficiencies), and broader social barriers (eg, housing instability and inadequate social support). Overcoming these barriers requires a multifaceted approach involving clinicians, policymakers, and the community that considers medical, psychological, and social factors.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

Working closely with individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), we’ve observed a worrisome trend of patients leaving the hospital against medical advice (AMA). This issue is not only prevalent in psychiatric settings, but also in emergency departments, medical and surgical floors, and even intensive care units.¹

Compared to individuals without such disorders, individuals with SUDs—particularly those with opioid use disorders—are up to 3 times more likely to leave the hospital AMA.^1,2 Leaving AMA can lead to multiple complications, including an increased risk of readmission, suboptimal treatment outcomes, and an increased use of health care resources.^1-3

It is critical to understand why patients elect to leave a hospital AMA. In a qualitative study, Simon et al¹ found that individuals with SUDs often leave AMA due to uncontrolled withdrawal symptoms and pain, perceived stigma and discrimination, and dissatisfaction with care. Predictors of patients leaving the hospital AMA include the severity of their drug dependence and previous negative treatment experiences.⁴ A systematic review found housing instability and a lack of social support influence an individual’s decision to leave AMA.⁵

Recommendations for managing patients who leave AMA

Enhancing your understanding of withdrawal symptoms may allow you to offer patients more effective symptom control, possibly with methadone or buprenorphine.² Injectable opioid agonist treatment may also help to retain a patient in care. In a case report, a 47-year-old man with a severe opioid use disorder who had left the hospital AMA due to uncontrolled opioid withdrawal was readmitted, treated with IV hydromorphone, and enrolled in ongoing community injectable opioid agonist treatment.⁶

Clinicians must address the stigma and discrimination patients with SUDs often face in health care institutions. Additional training for clinicians to improve their understanding of these disorders and foster a more compassionate and nonjudgmental approach to care may be beneficial.

Like most medicolegal conflicts, leaving AMA is often a clinical and interpersonal problem disguised as a legal one. When assessing these patients’ decision-making capacity, we often find they are angry and dissatisfied with the care they have (or have not) received. The most useful intervention may be to restore communication between the patient and their treatment team.

Even after a patient leaves AMA, the treatment team may experience countertransference issues, such as heightened emotional reactions or biases, that could compromise their clinical judgment. Addressing these dynamics may require team debriefings, supervision, or further training in managing transference and countertransference, particularly since patients who leave AMA may return for subsequent care.⁷

Integrated care models, which feature close collaboration between clinicians from different specialties, can help ensure that a patient’s diverse health needs are met and reduce the likelihood of them leaving AMA. Integrated care models may be particularly effective for patients with co-occurring conditions such as HIV and SUDs.⁸

Implementing these recommendations can be challenging. Barriers to addressing AMA departures span several domains, including patient-specific barriers (eg, stigma and discrimination), clinical barriers (eg, lack of resources and training for clinicians), institutional hurdles (eg, systemic inefficiencies), and broader social barriers (eg, housing instability and inadequate social support). Overcoming these barriers requires a multifaceted approach involving clinicians, policymakers, and the community that considers medical, psychological, and social factors.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style.

Working closely with individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), we’ve observed a worrisome trend of patients leaving the hospital against medical advice (AMA). This issue is not only prevalent in psychiatric settings, but also in emergency departments, medical and surgical floors, and even intensive care units.¹

Compared to individuals without such disorders, individuals with SUDs—particularly those with opioid use disorders—are up to 3 times more likely to leave the hospital AMA.^1,2 Leaving AMA can lead to multiple complications, including an increased risk of readmission, suboptimal treatment outcomes, and an increased use of health care resources.^1-3

It is critical to understand why patients elect to leave a hospital AMA. In a qualitative study, Simon et al¹ found that individuals with SUDs often leave AMA due to uncontrolled withdrawal symptoms and pain, perceived stigma and discrimination, and dissatisfaction with care. Predictors of patients leaving the hospital AMA include the severity of their drug dependence and previous negative treatment experiences.⁴ A systematic review found housing instability and a lack of social support influence an individual’s decision to leave AMA.⁵

Recommendations for managing patients who leave AMA

Enhancing your understanding of withdrawal symptoms may allow you to offer patients more effective symptom control, possibly with methadone or buprenorphine.² Injectable opioid agonist treatment may also help to retain a patient in care. In a case report, a 47-year-old man with a severe opioid use disorder who had left the hospital AMA due to uncontrolled opioid withdrawal was readmitted, treated with IV hydromorphone, and enrolled in ongoing community injectable opioid agonist treatment.⁶

Clinicians must address the stigma and discrimination patients with SUDs often face in health care institutions. Additional training for clinicians to improve their understanding of these disorders and foster a more compassionate and nonjudgmental approach to care may be beneficial.

Like most medicolegal conflicts, leaving AMA is often a clinical and interpersonal problem disguised as a legal one. When assessing these patients’ decision-making capacity, we often find they are angry and dissatisfied with the care they have (or have not) received. The most useful intervention may be to restore communication between the patient and their treatment team.

Even after a patient leaves AMA, the treatment team may experience countertransference issues, such as heightened emotional reactions or biases, that could compromise their clinical judgment. Addressing these dynamics may require team debriefings, supervision, or further training in managing transference and countertransference, particularly since patients who leave AMA may return for subsequent care.⁷

Integrated care models, which feature close collaboration between clinicians from different specialties, can help ensure that a patient’s diverse health needs are met and reduce the likelihood of them leaving AMA. Integrated care models may be particularly effective for patients with co-occurring conditions such as HIV and SUDs.⁸

Implementing these recommendations can be challenging. Barriers to addressing AMA departures span several domains, including patient-specific barriers (eg, stigma and discrimination), clinical barriers (eg, lack of resources and training for clinicians), institutional hurdles (eg, systemic inefficiencies), and broader social barriers (eg, housing instability and inadequate social support). Overcoming these barriers requires a multifaceted approach involving clinicians, policymakers, and the community that considers medical, psychological, and social factors.

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

Cutaneous malignant melanoma represents an aggressive form of skin cancer, with 132,000 new cases of melanoma and 50,000 melanoma-related deaths diagnosed worldwide each year.¹ In recent decades, major progress has been made in the treatment of melanoma, especially metastatic and advanced-stage disease. Approval of new treatments, such as immunotherapy with anti–PD-1 (pembrolizumab and nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) antibodies, has revolutionized therapeutic strategies (Figure 1). Molecularly, melanoma has the highest mutational burden among solid tumors. Approximately 40% of melanomas harbor the BRAF V600 mutation, leading to constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway.² The other described genomic subtypes are mutated RAS (accounting for approximately 28% of cases), mutated NF1 (approximately 14% of cases), and triple wild type, though these other subtypes have not been as successfully targeted with therapy to date.³ Dual inhibition of this pathway using combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors confers high response rates and survival benefit, though efficacy in metastatic patients often is limited by development of resistance. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 3 combinations of targeted therapy in unresectable tumors: dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, and encorafenib and binimetinib. The oncolytic herpesvirus talimogene laherparepvec also has received FDA approval for local treatment of unresectable cutaneous, subcutaneous, and nodal lesions in patients with recurrent melanoma after initial surgery.²

In this review, we explore new therapeutic agents and novel combinations that are being tested in early-phase clinical trials (Table). We discuss newer promising tools such as nanotechnology to develop nanosystems that act as drug carriers and/or light absorbents to potentially improve therapy outcomes. Finally, we highlight challenges such as management after resistance and intervention with novel immunotherapies and the lack of predictive biomarkers to stratify patients to targeted treatments after primary treatment failure.

Targeted Therapies

Vemurafenib was approved by the FDA in 2011 and was the first BRAF-targeted therapy approved for the treatment of melanoma based on a 48% response rate and a 63% reduction in the risk for death vs dacarbazine chemotherapy.⁴ Despite a rapid and clinically significant initial response, progression-free survival (PFS) was only 5.3 months, which is indicative of the rapid development of resistance with monotherapy through MAPK reactivation. As a result, combined BRAF and MEK inhibition was introduced and is now the standard of care for targeted therapy in melanoma. Treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib, vemurafenib and cobimetinib, or encorafenib and binimetinib is associated with prolonged PFS and overall survival (OS) compared to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy, with response rates exceeding 60% and a complete response rate of 10% to 18%.⁵ Recently, combining atezolizumab with vemurafenib and cobimetinib was shown to improve PFS compared to combined targeted therapy.⁶ Targeted therapy usually is given as first-line treatment to symptomatic patients with a high tumor burden because the response may be more rapid than the response to immunotherapy. Ultimately, most patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma receive both targeted therapy and immunotherapy.

Mutations of KIT (encoding proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase) activate intracellular MAPK and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways (Figure 2).⁷ KIT mutations are found in mucosal and acral melanomas as well as chronically sun-damaged skin, with frequencies of 39%, 36%, and 28%, respectively. Imatinib was associated with a 53% response rate and PFS of 3.9 months among patients with KIT-mutated melanoma but failed to cause regression in melanomas with KIT amplification.⁸

Anti–CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

CTLA-4 is a protein found on T cells that binds with another protein, B7, preventing T cells from killing cancer cells. Hence, blockade of CTLA-4 antibody avoids the immunosuppressive state of lymphocytes, strengthening their antitumor action.⁹ Ipilimumab, an anti–CTLA-4 antibody, demonstrated improvement in median OS for management of unresectable or metastatic stage IV melanoma, resulting in its FDA approval.⁸ A combination of ipilimumab with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma showed notable improvement of OS.¹⁰ Similarly, tremelimumab showed evidence of tumor regression in a phase 1 trial but with more severe immune-related side effects compared with ipilimumab.¹¹ A second study on patients with stage IV melanoma treated with tremelimumab as first-line therapy in comparison with dacarbazine demonstrated differences in OS that were not statistically significant, though there was a longer duration of an objective response in patients treated with tremelimumab (35.8 months) compared with patients responding to dacarbazine (13.7 months).¹²

Anti–PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition

PD-1 is a transmembrane protein with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory signaling, identified as an apoptosis-associated molecule.¹³ Upon activation, it is expressed on the cell surface of CD4, CD8, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, monocytes, and dendritic cells.¹⁴ PD-L1, the ligand of PD-1, is constitutively expressed on different hematopoietic cells, as well as on fibroblasts, endothelial cells, mesenchymal cells, neurons, and keratinocytes.^15,16 Reactivation of effector T lymphocytes by PD-1:PD-L1 pathway inhibition has shown clinically significant therapeutic relevance.¹⁷ The PD-1:PD-L1 interaction is active only in the presence of T- or B-cell antigen receptor cross-link. This interaction prevents PI3K/AKT signaling and MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase pathway activation with the net result of lymphocytic functional exhaustion.^18,19 PD-L1 blockade is shown to have better clinical benefit and minor toxicity compared to anti–CTLA-4 therapy. Treatment with anti-PD1 nivolumab in a phase 1b clinical trial (N=107) demonstrated highly specific action, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in 32% of patients with advanced melanoma.²⁰ These promising results led to the FDA approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with advanced and unresponsive melanoma. A recent clinical trial combining ipilimumab and nivolumab resulted in an impressive increase of PFS compared with ipilimumab monotherapy (11.5 months vs 2.9 months).²¹ Similarly, treatment with pembrolizumab in advanced melanoma demonstrated improvement in PFS and OS compared with anti–CTLA-4 therapy,^22,23 which resulted in FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of advanced melanoma in patients previously treated with ipilimumab or BRAF inhibitors in BRAF V600 mutation–positive patients.²⁴

Lymphocyte-Activated Gene 3–Targeted Therapies

Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 (LAG-3)(also known as CD223 or FDC protein) is a type of immune checkpoint receptor transmembrane protein that is located on chromosome 12.²⁵ It is present on the surface of effector T cells and regulatory T cells that regulate the adaptive immune response.²⁶ Lymphocyte-activated gene 3 is reported to be highly expressed on the surface of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, thus the level of LAG-3 expression was found to corelate with the prognosis of tumors. In some tumors involving the kidneys, lungs, and bladder, a high level of LAG-3 was associated with a worse prognosis; in gastric carcinoma and melanoma, a high level of LAG-3 indicates better prognosis.²⁷ Similar to PD-1, LAG-3 also is found to be an inhibitory checkpoint that contributes to decreased T cells. Therefore, antibodies targeting LAG-3 have been gaining interest as modalities in cancer immunotherapy. The initial clinical trials employing only LAG-3 antibody on solid tumors found an objective response rate and disease control rate of 6% and 17%, respectively.^25,26,28 Given the unsatisfactory results, the idea that combination therapy with an anti–PD-L1 drug and LAG-3 antibody started gaining attention. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial, RELATIVITY-047, studying the effects of a combination of relatlimab (a first-in-class LAG-3 antibody) and nivolumab (an anti–PD-L1 antibody) on melanoma found longer PFS (10.1 months vs 4.6 months) and a 25% lower risk for disease progression or death with the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab vs nivolumab alone.²⁸ The FDA approved the combination of relatlimab and nivolumab for individuals aged 12 years or older with previously untreated melanoma that is surgically unresectable or has metastasized.²⁹ Zhao et al³⁰ demonstrated that LAG-3/PD-1 and CTLA-4/PD-1 inhibition showed similar PFS, and LAG-3/PD-1 inhibition showed earlier survival benefit and fewer treatment-related adverse effects, with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse effects occurring in 18.9% of patients on anti–LAG-3 and anti–PD-1 combination (relatlimab plus nivolumab) compared with 55.0% in patients treated with anti–CTL-4 and anti–PD-1 combination (ipilimumab plus nivolumab)(N=1344). Further studies are warranted to understand the exact mechanism of LAG-3 signaling pathways, effects of its inhibition and efficacy, and adverse events associated with its combined use with anti–PD-1 drugs.

The use of nanotechnology represents one of the newer alternative therapies employed for treatment of melanoma and is especially gaining interest due to reduced adverse effects in comparison with other conventional treatments for melanoma. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems precisely target tumor cells and improve the effect of both the conventional and innovative antineoplastic treatment.^27,31 Tumor vasculature differs from normal tissues by being discontinuous and having interspersed small gaps/holes that allow nanoparticles to exit the circulation and enter and accumulate in the tumor tissue, leading to enhanced and targeted release of the antineoplastic drug to tumor cells.³² This mechanism is called the enhanced permeability and retention effect.³³

Another mechanism by which nanoparticles work is ligand-based targeting in which ligands such as monoclonal antibodies, peptides, and nucleic acids located on the surface of nanoparticles can bind to receptors on the plasma membrane of tumor cells and lead to targeted delivery of the drug.³⁴ Nanomaterials used for melanoma treatment include vesicular systems such as liposomes and niosomes, polymeric nanoparticles, noble metal-based nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes, dendrimers, solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructures, lipid carriers, and microneedles. In melanoma, nanoparticles can be used to enhance targeted delivery of drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Cai et al³⁵ described usage of scaffolds in delivery systems. Tumor-associated antigens, adjuvant drugs, and chemical agents that influence the tumor microenvironment can be loaded onto these scaffolding agents. In a study by Zhu et al,³⁶ photosensitizer chlorin e6 and immunoadjuvant aluminum hydroxide were used as a novel nanosystem that effectively destroyed tumor cells and induced a strong systemic antitumor response. IL-2 is a cytokine produced by B or T lymphocytes. Its use in melanoma has been limited by a severe adverse effect profile and lack of complete response in most patients. Cytokine-containing nanogels have been found to selectively release IL-2 in response to activation of T-cell receptors, and a mouse model in melanoma showed better response compared to free IL-1 and no adverse systemic effects.³⁷

Nanovaccines represent another interesting novel immunotherapy modality. A study by Conniot et al³⁸ showed that nanoparticles can be used in the treatment of melanoma. Nanoparticles made of biodegradable polymer were loaded with Melan-A/MART-1 (26–35 A27L) MHC class I-restricted peptide (MHC class I antigen), and the limited peptide MHC class II Melan-A/MART-1 51–73 (MHC class II antigen) and grafted with mannose that was then combined with an anti–PD-L1 antibody and injected into mouse models. This combination resulted in T-cell infiltration at early stages and increased infiltration of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Ibrutinib, a myeloid-derived suppressor cell inhibitor, was added and demonstrated marked tumor remission and prolonged survival.³⁸

Overexpression of certain microRNAs (miRNAs), especially miR-204-5p and miR-199b-5p, has been shown to inhibit growth of melanoma cells in vitro, both alone and in combination with MAPK inhibitors, but these miRNAs are easily degradable in body fluids. Lipid nanoparticles can bind these miRNAs and have been shown to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and improve efficacy of BRAF and MEK inhibitors.³⁹

Triple-Combination Therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-1 or anti–CTLA-4 drugs have become the standard of care in treatment of advanced melanoma. Approximately 40% to 50% of cases of melanoma harbor BRAF mutations, and patients with these mutations could benefit from BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Data from clinical trials on BRAF and MEK inhibitors even showed initial high objective response rates, but the response was short-lived, and there was frequent acquired resistance.⁴⁰ With ICIs, the major limitation was primary resistance, with only 50% of patients initially responding.⁴¹ Studies on murine models demonstrated that BRAF-mutated tumors had decreased expression of IFN-γ, tumor necrosis factor α, and CD40 ligand on CD4⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and increased accumulation of regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, leading to a protumor microenvironment. BRAF and MEK pathway inhibition were found to improve intratumoral CD4⁺ T-cell activity, leading to improved antitumor T-cell responses.⁴² Because of this enhanced immune response by BRAF and MEK inhibitors, it was hypothesized and later supported by clinical research that a combination of these targeted treatments and ICIs can have a synergistic effect, leading to increased antitumor activity.⁴³ A randomized phase 2 clinical trial (KEYNOTE-022) in which the treatment group was given pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib and the control group was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib showed increased medial OS in the treatment group vs the control group (46.3 months vs 26.3 months) and more frequent complete response in the treatment group vs the control group (20% vs 15%).⁴⁴ In the IMspire150 phase 3 clinical trial, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF-mutant melanoma were treated with either a triple combination of the PDL-1 inhibitor atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib or vemurafenib and cobimetinib. Although the objective response rate was similar in both groups, the median duration of response was longer in the triplet group compared with the doublet group (21 months vs 12.6 months). Given these results, the FDA approved the triple-combination therapy with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib. Although triple-combination therapy has shown promising results, it is expected that there will be an increase in the frequency of treatment-related adverse effects. In the phase 3 COMBi-I study, patients with advanced stage IIIC to IV BRAF V600E mutant cutaneous melanoma were treated with either a combination of spartalizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib or just dabrafenib and trametinib. Although the objective response rates were not significantly different (69% vs 64%), there was increased frequency of treatment-related adverse effects in patients receiving triple-combination therapy.⁴³ As more follow-up data come out of these ongoing clinical trials, benefits of triple-combination therapy and its adverse effect profile will be more definitely established.

Challenges and Future Perspectives

One of the major roadblocks in the treatment of melanoma is the failure of response to ICI with CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in a large patient population, which has resulted in the need for new biomarkers that can act as potential therapeutic targets. Further, the main underlying factor for both adjuvant and neoadjuvant approaches remains the selection of patients, optimizing therapeutic outcomes while minimizing the number of patients exposed to potentially toxic treatments without gaining clinical benefit. Clinical and pathological factors (eg, Breslow thickness, ulceration, the number of positive lymph nodes) play a role in stratifying patients as per risk of recurrence.⁴⁵ Similarly, peripheral blood biomarkers have been proposed as prognostic tools for high-risk stage II and III melanoma, including markers of systemic inflammation previously explored in the metastatic setting.⁴⁶ However, the use of these parameters has not been validated for clinical practice. Currently, despite promising results of BRAF and MEK inhibitors and therapeutic ICIs, as well as IL-2 or interferon alfa, treatment options in metastatic melanoma are limited because of its high heterogeneity, problematic patient stratification, and high genetic mutational rate. Recently, the role of epigenetic modifications andmiRNAs in melanoma progression and metastatic spread has been described. Silencing of CDKN2A locus and encoding for p16^INK4A and p14^ARF by DNA methylation are noted in 27% and 57% of metastatic melanomas, respectively, which enables melanoma cells to escape from growth arrest and apoptosis generated by Rb protein and p53 pathways.⁴⁷ Demethylation of these and other tumor suppressor genes with proapoptotic function (eg, RASSF1A and tumor necrosis factor–related apoptosis-inducing ligand) can restore cell death pathways, though future clinical studies in melanoma are warranted.⁴⁸

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

The Diagnosis: Lelis Syndrome

Histopathology revealed spongiotic dermatitis with marked acanthosis and hyperkeratosis (Figure, A) with fungal colonization of the stratum corneum (Figure, B). Our patient was diagnosed with Lelis syndrome (also referred to as ectodermal dysplasia with acanthosis nigricans syndrome), a rare condition with hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis resulting from ectodermal dysplasia.^1,2 The pruritic rash was diagnosed as chronic dermatitis due to fungal colonization in the setting of acanthosis nigricans. The fungal infection was treated with a 4-week course of oral fluconazole 200 mg/wk, ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily, and discontinuation of topical steroids, resulting in the thinning of the plaques on the neck and antecubital fossae as well as resolution of the pruritus. Following antifungal treatment, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans.

Ectodermal dysplasias are inherited disorders with abnormalities of the skin, hair, sweat glands, nails, teeth, and sometimes internal organs.³ Patients with Lelis syndrome may have other manifestations of ectodermal dysplasia in addition to hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis, including deafness and abnormal dentition,^1,3 as seen in our patient. Intellectual disability has been described in many types of ectodermal dysplasia, including Lelis syndrome, but the association may be obscured by neurologic damage after repeat episodes of hyperthermia in infancy due to anhidrosis or hypohidrosis.⁴

When evaluating the differential diagnoses, the presence of hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis indicating ectodermal dysplasia is key. Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis presents with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and focal acanthosis on histopathology. It can present on the neck and antecubital fossae; however, it is not associated with hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis.⁵ Although activating fibroblast growth factor receptor, FGFR, mutations have been implicated in the development of acanthosis nigricans in a variety of syndromes, these diagnoses are associated with abnormalities in skeletal development such as craniosynostosis and short stature; hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not seen.^6,7 HAIR-AN (hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance, and acanthosis nigricans) syndrome typically presents in the prepubertal period with obesity and insulin resistance; acanthosis nigricans and alopecia can occur due to insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism, but concurrent clitoromegaly and hirsutism are common.⁶ Sudden onset of extensive acanthosis nigricans also is among the paraneoplastic dermatoses; it has been associated with multiple malignancies, but in these cases, hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not observed. Adenocarcinomas are the most common neoplasms associated with paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans, which occurs through growth factor secretion by tumor cells stimulating hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis.⁶

Lelis syndrome is rare, and our case is unique because the patient had severe manifestations of acanthosis nigricans and hypotrichosis. Because the inheritance pattern and specific genetics of the condition have not been fully elucidated, the diagnosis primarily is clinical.^1,8 Diagnosis may be complicated by the variety of other signs that can accompany acanthosis nigricans, hypohidrosis, and hypotrichosis.^1,2 The condition also may alter or obscure presentation of other dermatologic conditions, as in our case.

Although there is no cure for Lelis syndrome, one case report described treatment with acitretin that resulted in marked improvement of the patient’s hyperkeratosis and acanthosis nigricans.⁹ Due to lack of health insurance coverage of acitretin, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans. General treatment of ectodermal dysplasia primarily consists of multidisciplinary symptom management, including careful monitoring of temperature and heat intolerance as well as provision of dental prosthetics.^4,10 For ectodermal dysplasias caused by identified genetic mutations, prenatal interventions targeting gene pathways offer potentially curative treatment.¹⁰ However, for Lelis syndrome, along with many other disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, mitigation of signs and symptoms remains the primary treatment objective. Despite its rarity, increased awareness of Lelis syndrome is important to increase knowledge of ectodermal dysplasia syndromes and allow for the investigation of potential treatment options.

The Diagnosis: Lelis Syndrome

Histopathology revealed spongiotic dermatitis with marked acanthosis and hyperkeratosis (Figure, A) with fungal colonization of the stratum corneum (Figure, B). Our patient was diagnosed with Lelis syndrome (also referred to as ectodermal dysplasia with acanthosis nigricans syndrome), a rare condition with hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis resulting from ectodermal dysplasia.^1,2 The pruritic rash was diagnosed as chronic dermatitis due to fungal colonization in the setting of acanthosis nigricans. The fungal infection was treated with a 4-week course of oral fluconazole 200 mg/wk, ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily, and discontinuation of topical steroids, resulting in the thinning of the plaques on the neck and antecubital fossae as well as resolution of the pruritus. Following antifungal treatment, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans.

Ectodermal dysplasias are inherited disorders with abnormalities of the skin, hair, sweat glands, nails, teeth, and sometimes internal organs.³ Patients with Lelis syndrome may have other manifestations of ectodermal dysplasia in addition to hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis, including deafness and abnormal dentition,^1,3 as seen in our patient. Intellectual disability has been described in many types of ectodermal dysplasia, including Lelis syndrome, but the association may be obscured by neurologic damage after repeat episodes of hyperthermia in infancy due to anhidrosis or hypohidrosis.⁴

When evaluating the differential diagnoses, the presence of hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis indicating ectodermal dysplasia is key. Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis presents with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and focal acanthosis on histopathology. It can present on the neck and antecubital fossae; however, it is not associated with hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis.⁵ Although activating fibroblast growth factor receptor, FGFR, mutations have been implicated in the development of acanthosis nigricans in a variety of syndromes, these diagnoses are associated with abnormalities in skeletal development such as craniosynostosis and short stature; hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not seen.^6,7 HAIR-AN (hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance, and acanthosis nigricans) syndrome typically presents in the prepubertal period with obesity and insulin resistance; acanthosis nigricans and alopecia can occur due to insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism, but concurrent clitoromegaly and hirsutism are common.⁶ Sudden onset of extensive acanthosis nigricans also is among the paraneoplastic dermatoses; it has been associated with multiple malignancies, but in these cases, hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not observed. Adenocarcinomas are the most common neoplasms associated with paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans, which occurs through growth factor secretion by tumor cells stimulating hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis.⁶

Lelis syndrome is rare, and our case is unique because the patient had severe manifestations of acanthosis nigricans and hypotrichosis. Because the inheritance pattern and specific genetics of the condition have not been fully elucidated, the diagnosis primarily is clinical.^1,8 Diagnosis may be complicated by the variety of other signs that can accompany acanthosis nigricans, hypohidrosis, and hypotrichosis.^1,2 The condition also may alter or obscure presentation of other dermatologic conditions, as in our case.

Although there is no cure for Lelis syndrome, one case report described treatment with acitretin that resulted in marked improvement of the patient’s hyperkeratosis and acanthosis nigricans.⁹ Due to lack of health insurance coverage of acitretin, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans. General treatment of ectodermal dysplasia primarily consists of multidisciplinary symptom management, including careful monitoring of temperature and heat intolerance as well as provision of dental prosthetics.^4,10 For ectodermal dysplasias caused by identified genetic mutations, prenatal interventions targeting gene pathways offer potentially curative treatment.¹⁰ However, for Lelis syndrome, along with many other disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, mitigation of signs and symptoms remains the primary treatment objective. Despite its rarity, increased awareness of Lelis syndrome is important to increase knowledge of ectodermal dysplasia syndromes and allow for the investigation of potential treatment options.

The Diagnosis: Lelis Syndrome

Histopathology revealed spongiotic dermatitis with marked acanthosis and hyperkeratosis (Figure, A) with fungal colonization of the stratum corneum (Figure, B). Our patient was diagnosed with Lelis syndrome (also referred to as ectodermal dysplasia with acanthosis nigricans syndrome), a rare condition with hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis resulting from ectodermal dysplasia.^1,2 The pruritic rash was diagnosed as chronic dermatitis due to fungal colonization in the setting of acanthosis nigricans. The fungal infection was treated with a 4-week course of oral fluconazole 200 mg/wk, ketoconazole cream 2% twice daily, and discontinuation of topical steroids, resulting in the thinning of the plaques on the neck and antecubital fossae as well as resolution of the pruritus. Following antifungal treatment, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans.

Ectodermal dysplasias are inherited disorders with abnormalities of the skin, hair, sweat glands, nails, teeth, and sometimes internal organs.³ Patients with Lelis syndrome may have other manifestations of ectodermal dysplasia in addition to hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis, including deafness and abnormal dentition,^1,3 as seen in our patient. Intellectual disability has been described in many types of ectodermal dysplasia, including Lelis syndrome, but the association may be obscured by neurologic damage after repeat episodes of hyperthermia in infancy due to anhidrosis or hypohidrosis.⁴

When evaluating the differential diagnoses, the presence of hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis indicating ectodermal dysplasia is key. Confluent and reticulated papillomatosis presents with hyperkeratosis, papillomatosis, and focal acanthosis on histopathology. It can present on the neck and antecubital fossae; however, it is not associated with hypohidrosis and hypotrichosis.⁵ Although activating fibroblast growth factor receptor, FGFR, mutations have been implicated in the development of acanthosis nigricans in a variety of syndromes, these diagnoses are associated with abnormalities in skeletal development such as craniosynostosis and short stature; hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not seen.^6,7 HAIR-AN (hyperandrogenism, insulin resistance, and acanthosis nigricans) syndrome typically presents in the prepubertal period with obesity and insulin resistance; acanthosis nigricans and alopecia can occur due to insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism, but concurrent clitoromegaly and hirsutism are common.⁶ Sudden onset of extensive acanthosis nigricans also is among the paraneoplastic dermatoses; it has been associated with multiple malignancies, but in these cases, hypotrichosis and hypohidrosis are not observed. Adenocarcinomas are the most common neoplasms associated with paraneoplastic acanthosis nigricans, which occurs through growth factor secretion by tumor cells stimulating hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis.⁶

Lelis syndrome is rare, and our case is unique because the patient had severe manifestations of acanthosis nigricans and hypotrichosis. Because the inheritance pattern and specific genetics of the condition have not been fully elucidated, the diagnosis primarily is clinical.^1,8 Diagnosis may be complicated by the variety of other signs that can accompany acanthosis nigricans, hypohidrosis, and hypotrichosis.^1,2 The condition also may alter or obscure presentation of other dermatologic conditions, as in our case.

Although there is no cure for Lelis syndrome, one case report described treatment with acitretin that resulted in marked improvement of the patient’s hyperkeratosis and acanthosis nigricans.⁹ Due to lack of health insurance coverage of acitretin, our patient was started on tazarotene cream 0.1% for acanthosis nigricans. General treatment of ectodermal dysplasia primarily consists of multidisciplinary symptom management, including careful monitoring of temperature and heat intolerance as well as provision of dental prosthetics.^4,10 For ectodermal dysplasias caused by identified genetic mutations, prenatal interventions targeting gene pathways offer potentially curative treatment.¹⁰ However, for Lelis syndrome, along with many other disorders of ectodermal dysplasia, mitigation of signs and symptoms remains the primary treatment objective. Despite its rarity, increased awareness of Lelis syndrome is important to increase knowledge of ectodermal dysplasia syndromes and allow for the investigation of potential treatment options.

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Prior studies show inconsistent outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) and data in premenopausal women is limited. The retrospective cohort study by Yoon and colleagues analyzed the data from three databases and included 225,938 premenopausal women with stage I-III ILC or invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in their study to evaluate survival trends in young women with ILC. In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, patients with ILC vs IDC showed superior breast cancer severity score (BCSS) outcomes during the first 10 years after diagnosis (HR 0.73; P < .001); similar results were seen in the Asan Medical Center Research (AMCR) database (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29-0.86; P = .01). After 10 years, the trend reversed, and BCSS outcomes worsened by 80% in patients with ILC in the SEER database (HR 1.80; P < .001). This was also seen in both the Korean Breast Cancer Registry (HR 2.79; 95% CI 1.32-5.88; P = .007) and AMCR database (HR 2.23; 95% CI 1.04-4.79; P = .04). These findings remained consistent after adjusting for tumor characteristics including age, stage, tumor grade, hormone receptor status, and after controlling for treatment with chemotherapy and radiation. In addition, in the SEER database, the histologic type exerted a statistically significant time-dependent association with BCSS, with ILC showing decreasing BCSS over time (time interaction HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.78-2.10; P < .001). Furthermore, on annual hazard function analysis, the ILC annual peak event of BCSS occurred 5 years after diagnosis, whereas the IDC recurrence events peaked at 5 years before diagnosis, suggesting a higher late recurrence rate for ILC. These findings may have implications on the duration of endocrine therapy used in these patients given concern for worse long-term outcomes in premenopausal patients with ILC.

Oral selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERD) have recently emerged as a new therapeutic mechanism for patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer who have developed resistance to other endocrine therapies. Two of these agents, elacestrant and camizestrant, have demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival benefit in these populations, particularly in tumors with ESR1 mutations. The efficacy of these agents in tumors with ESR1 wild-type subgroup remains uncertain. A meta-analysis by Wong and colleagues of individual patient data from four randomized clinical trials (ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD, and SERENA-2) included 1290 patients with hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative metastatic breast cancer who received oral SERD or endocrine therapies (ET) of the physician's choice. In the overall cohort, oral SERD showed improved progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes compared with ET of the physician's choice (HR 0.783; 95% CI 0.681-0.900; P < .001). This was also noted in the subgroup of patients with ESR1 mutations (HR 0.557; 95% CI 0.440-0.705; P < .001); although no significant PFS benefit was observed with oral SERD in the ESR1 wild-type subgroup (HR 0.944; 95% CI 0.783-1.138; P = .543). These results suggest that the PFS benefit observed with oral SERD is mainly seen in patients with ESR1-mutated tumors, and, therefore, these drugs should be prescribed accordingly.

Additional Reference

1. Cold S, Cold F, Jensen M-B, et al. Systemic or vaginal hormone therapy after early breast cancer: A Danish observational cohort study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1347–1354. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djac112

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Findings from this real-world study identified the protective and risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had no COVID-19 infection and received the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

Major finding: Older patients who were age > 50 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.38; P = .004) and patients receiving conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (aHR 0.52; P = .021) had a significantly lower risk for BI, whereas patients receiving anti-interleukin 6 receptor (aHR 2.01; P = 0.039) and anti-CD20 (aHR 2.88; P = .011) treatments had ~2 and ~3 times higher risks for BI, respectively.

Study details: This prospective study included participants who had never been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 and had received three doses of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, of whom 194 had RA and 1002 were control individuals.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Picchianti-Diamanti A et al. Older age, a high titre of neutralising antibodies and therapy with conventional DMARDs are associated with protection from breakthrough infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients after the booster dose of anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Vaccines. 2023;11(11):1684 (Nov 2). doi: 10.3390/vaccines11111684

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730

Key clinical point: Patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) had a higher frequency of adverse events (AE) with methotrexate + tociluzumab vs methotrexate + active conventional treatment (ACT), which restricted their ability to tolerate the target dose of 25 mg methotrexate per week.

Major finding: The risk for methotrexate-associated AE was significantly higher (hazard ratio 1.48; 95% CI 1.20-1.84) and the proportion of patients able to tolerate 25 mg methotrexate per week at 24 weeks was significantly lower (odds ratio 0.25; P < .001) in the methotrexate + tocilizumab vs methotrexate + ACT group. However, the risks for methotrexate-associated AE were comparable for methotrexate  +ACT and the combinations of methotrexate with other biologics like certolizumab-pegol or abatacept.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 4 NORD-STAR trial included 812 treatment-naive patients with early RA who were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate in combination with ACT, certolizumab-pegol, abatacept, or tocilizumab.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. Some authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Lend K et al. Methotrexate safety and efficacy in combination therapies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NORD-STAR). Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023 (Oct 17). doi: 10.1002/art.42730