Search

Physicians' and patients' perspectives can vary significantly. For a long time, physicians considered psoriasis a non-pruritic dermatosis until a survey found pruritus to be the most bothersome symptom among psoriasis patients. In our study, we wanted to get an insight into the factors that affect patients and evaluate whether gender differences exist. A link of an anonymous online survey ( www.fightpsoriasis.ch ) with 24 questions was placed on the website of the Swiss Psoriasis and Vitiligo Patient Association ( www.spvg.ch ) from May 2016 until June 2017. 3164 persons participated in this online survey, of which 1979 were diagnosed with psoriasis. Significantly more females than males were affected by psoriatic pruritus [713 (36%) vs. 500 (25.3%), p ≤ 0.001] and 756 (39.7%) of all patients identified pruritus as the most life quality-limiting factor. Fewer women reported high satisfaction with their therapy compared to men [96 (4.9%) vs. 110 (5.6%), p ≤ 0.015]. Pruritus remains the most bothersome symptom and women were more often affected by it, leading to a lower treatment satisfaction among female patients.

Background: Patients with mastocytosis often suffer from a variety of symptoms caused by mast cell mediators where treatments remain difficult, showing various success rates. Omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, has been postulated to have a positive impact on mastocytosis-associated symptoms such as flush, vertigo, gastrointestinal problems, or anaphylaxis., Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in systemic mastocytosis., Methods: Patients with histologically proven mastocytosis were investigated in a multicenter prospective double-blind placebo-controlled trial to receive either omalizumab or placebo, dosed according to IgE and body weight. The primary endpoint was change in the AFIRMM activity score after 6 months of treatment. Different laboratory parameters were analyzed., Results: Sixteen patients were analyzed: 7 to omalizumab and 9 to placebo (mean age 47.7 ± 13.8 vs. 45.4 ± 8.8 years; 66.6 vs. 85.7% were female; mean disease duration 10.0 ± 5.1 vs. 4.5 ± 2.9 years, respectively). After 6 months the median AFIRMM score decreased 50% from 52.0 to 26.0 in the omalizumab group versus 104.0-102.0 in the placebo group (p = 0.286); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.941). Secondary endpoints, including the number of allergic reactions, changes in major complaints, wheal-and-flare reaction due to mechanical irritation (Darier's sign), and frequency of the use of mastocytosis-specific drugs improved in the omalizumab group, but not significantly. Adverse events like urticaria, bronchospasm, and anaphylactic shock showed no significant difference between the groups. No severe adverse events occurred. FcεRI (Fc-epsilon receptor) expression on basophils decreased after receiving omalizumab versus placebo., Conclusion: Omalizumab was safe and showed a tendency to improve mastocytosis-related symptoms, in particular diarrhea, dizziness, flush, and anaphylactic reactions, including the AFIRMM score and secondary endpoints; however, the difference was not significant. Due to the small study size and difference at baseline between the study groups, further studies are required to confirm our findings., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: Potassium iodide (KI) is a medication that has been used for decades in dermatology and it is mentioned as a treatment option in all major dermatology textbooks. Yet, there is little recent information on its efficacy. In our study, we wanted to retrospectively evaluate the therapy response to KI in our patients., Methods: The hospital information system was searched for patients treated with KI at the Department of Dermatology (University Hospital Zurich) in the last 20 years (January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2017). A total of 52 patients were found and, subsequently, 35 patients were included in our study., Results: KI was prescribed for the following skin conditions: erythema nodosum, disseminated granuloma anulare, necrobiosis lipoidica, nodular vasculitis, cutaneous sarcoidosis, and granulomatous perioral dermatitis/ rosacea. The median duration of KI intake was 5 ± 7.7 weeks (range 1-26). The global assessment of efficacy by the treating physician showed an improvement of disease in about a third of all patients. No response was seen in 14 patients and 9 even had a progression of disease. An adverse event was documented in 16 cases., Conclusions: Our findings show that an improvement was reached in only about a third of all cases. High response rates with only mild side effects (in 16 out of 35 patients) were observed., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Treatment of melanoma remains a challenge in advanced disease. Recently, the molecular differentiation in BRAF-mutated, NRAS-mutated and c-kit-mutated melanomas led to new treatment strategies. Different trials show that imatinib or nilotinib lead to meaningful responses in c-kit-mutated melanoma patients. There are little published data on sequential inhibition using these two drugs in melanoma. We describe the sequential use of imatinib after nilotinib in a c-kit-mutated melanoma patient, who progressed on interferon, Allovectin, dacarbazine, nilotinib and ipilimumab, and was finally treated with the c-kit inhibitor imatinib. From July 2011 to September 2011, the patient received ipilimumab (four doses with 3 mg/kg). Clinical assessment after immunotherapy showed disease progression. Therefore, a treatment change to imatinib 800 mg daily was made from February 2012 to May 2013. Under this treatment, the patient showed a partial response as per the RECIST criteria. The present lesions continued responding (computed tomography scans: May 2012-March 2013). Unfortunately, in October 2012, new brain metastases developed. Nevertheless, the use of c-kit inhibitors in c-kit-mutated melanoma patients seems to be a promising treatment option. Furthermore, a delayed response to ipilimumab after 6 months could also have led to or supported the partial response in this case. However, when two biologically similar compounds are administered in a melanoma patient and the tumour mass shows progressive disease upon administration of the first agent, an additional progression with no effect may be expected when the second one is used. This case shows, in contrast, that the use of imatinib after progression upon nilotinib can be beneficial.

A patient with tinea incognita is presented together with a review of the literature of figurate erythema. Figurate lesions are emblematic for dermatology and perhaps the most picturesque efflorescences. The differential diagnosis can be broad and sometimes challenging. Many clinical entities with resembling primary and secondary efflorescences have to be considered as differentials and can be due to anti-infectious, paraneoplastic, allergic, autoimmune or other immune reactions.

Background: Treatment with selective BRAF or MEK inhibitors is frequently associated with cutaneous toxicities, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), papillomas and rash. These cutaneous adverse effects are typically observed at a lower incidence during combined BRAF and MEK inhibitor therapy., Patients and Methods: Two male patients with stage IV metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma were treated with a combination of a selective BRAF inhibitor and a selective MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib and trametinib, or encorafenib (LGX818) and binimetinib (MEK162)) within two different clinical trials. Ten and 150 days after treatment start respectively, the patients developed painful nodules on the legs. In addition, one patient developed symmetrical articulation pain and intermittent fever episodes., Results: Based on the clinical and histological presentation, erythema nodosum-like panniculitis was diagnosed in both cases. No other aetiology could be found. After receiving topical or oral steroid treatment and anti-inflammatory analgesics, the painful nodular lesions disappeared several weeks later. In one case, a rebound of the painful nodules was observed when the combination treatment (dabrafenib and trametinib) was resumed after a 1-week unscheduled treatment interruption., Conclusions: Panniculitis has previously been described in association with BRAF inhibitor treatment, but not MEK inhibitor treatment. Combination treatment is usually associated with a lower incidence of cutaneous adverse events (AEs), as compared to monotherapy. Panniculitis was observed in two patients during combined BRAF and MEK inhibitor treatment. These cases illustrate the need for further research in a larger patient population to identify a possible link between combined BRAF and MEK inhibitor treatment and the incidence of panniculitis.

Melanoma today is considered as a spectrum of melanocytic malignancies characterised by clinical and molecular features, including targetable mutations in several kinases such as BRAF or c-KIT. The successful development of therapies targeting these mutations has resulted in new specific treatment options. These include vemurafenib, dabrafenib, trametinib, imatinib and other kinase inhibitors that are selected when the respective mutation is present. The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has resulted in improved survival in patients with BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. Dabrafenib has shown similar efficacy. The MEK inhibitor trametinib also improved overall survival. In addition, the MEK inhibitor MEK 162 was investigated in a phase II clinical trial and showed promising efficacy in terms of response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) in NRAS-mutated melanomas. After this first success in the treatment of advanced melanoma, there is expectation that combinations of kinase inhibitors will additionally improve overall survival rates and PFS in advanced melanoma.