Search

Background: Methotrexate is an off-label therapy for atopic dermatitis. A lack of consensus on dosing regimens poses a risk of underdosing and ineffective treatment or overdosing and increased risk of side effects. This systematic review summarizes the available evidence on dosing regimens. Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted, screening all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and guidelines published up to 6 July 2023, in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Results: Five RCTs and 21 guidelines were included. RCTs compared methotrexate with other treatments rather than different methotrexate dosing regimens. The start and maintenance doses in RCTs varied between 7.5–15 mg/week and 14.5–25 mg/week, respectively. Despite varied dosing, all RCTs demonstrated efficacy in improving atopic dermatitis signs and symptoms. Guidelines exhibited substantial heterogeneity but predominantly proposed starting doses of 5–15 mg/week for adults and 10–15 mg/m2/week for children. Maintenance doses suggested were 7.5–25 mg/week for adults and 0.2–0.7 mg/kg/week for children. One guideline suggested a test dose and nearly half advised folic acid supplementation. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the lack of methotrexate dosing guidelines for atopic dermatitis. It identifies commonly recommended and utilized dosing regimens, serving as a valuable resource for clinicians prescribing methotrexate off-label and providing input for an upcoming consensus study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies demonstrated limited efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in unresectable acral melanoma (AM); it remains unclear how this translates to the adjuvant setting. This study investigates clinical outcomes of acral compared to cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients treated with adjuvant anti‐PD‐1 after complete resection. All stages III–IV AM and CM patients receiving adjuvant anti‐PD‐1 after complete resection between 2018 and 2022 were included from the prospective nationwide Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We analyzed recurrence‐free survival (RFS), distant metastasis‐free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox regression analysis of RFS was performed to adjust for potential confounders. We included 1958 (86 AM and 1872 CM) patients. At baseline, AM patients more frequently had KIT mutations, higher disease stages, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, and fewer BRAF and NRAS mutations. Median RFS was 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5–29.3) in AM and 37.4 months (95% CI: 34.6 to not reached) in CM (p =.002). After correcting for potential confounders, AM remained associated with a higher risk of recurrence (HRadj 1.53; 95% CI: 1.07–2.17; p =.019). Two‐year DMFS tended to be worse for AM than for CM: 64.5% versus 79.7% (p =.050). Two‐year OS was significantly lower in AM (71.5% vs. 84.3%; p =.027). The results of this study suggest a poorer outcome of adjuvant‐treated AM compared to CM. Studies assessing the added value of adjuvant treatment in AM are needed. Future research should investigate alternative treatment strategies to improve outcomes of high‐risk AM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effectivity of BRAF(/MEK) inhibitor rechallenge has been described in prior studies. However, structured data are largely lacking. Methods: Data from all advanced melanoma patients treated with BRAFi(/MEKi) rechallenge were retrieved from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. The authors analyzed objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both first treatment and rechallenge. They performed a multivariable logistic regression and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model to assess factors associated with response and survival. Results: The authors included 468 patients in the largest cohort to date who underwent at least two treatment episodes of BRAFi(/MEKi). Following rechallenge, ORR was 43%, median PFS was 4.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–5.2), and median OS was 8.2 months (95% CI, 7.2–9.4). Median PFS after rechallenge for patients who discontinued first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.0) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5–5.9) for patients who discontinued treatment for other reasons. Discontinuing first treatment due to progression and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels greater than two times the upper limit of normal were associated with lower odds of response and worse PFS and OS. Symptomatic brain metastases were associated with worse survival, whereas a longer treatment interval between first treatment and rechallenge was associated with better survival. Responding to the first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment was not associated with response or survival. Conclusions: This study confirms that patients benefit from rechallenge. Elevated LDH levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit from rechallenge. A prolonged treatment interval is associated with more benefit from rechallenge. This study confirms that patients with advanced melanoma derive benefit from rechallenge with BRAFi(/MEKi). Elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels, symptomatic brain metastases, and discontinuing first BRAFi(/MEKi) treatment due to progression are associated with less benefit on rechallenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Up to 50% of patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma develop brain metastases during the course of their disease. The prognosis of melanoma patients is heavily affected by the presence of brain metastases. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data on prognostic factors for these patients. Many of these patients are treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, the aim of our study was to identify prognostic factors in melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. In a population of 1278 advanced melanoma patients, we found that serum lactate dehydrogenase levels were the strongest clinical parameter associated with survival. This information is useful for both doctors and patients to provide more insight into patients' prognoses. The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced melanoma that develop brain metastases (BM) remains unpredictable. In this study, we aimed to identify prognostic factors in patients with melanoma BM who are treated with ICIs. Data from advanced melanoma patients with BM treated with ICIs in any line between 2013 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. Patients were included from the time of the treatment of BM with ICIs. Survival tree analysis was performed with clinicopathological parameters as potential classifiers and overall survival (OS) as the response variable. In total, 1278 patients were included. Most patients were treated with ipilimumab–nivolumab combination therapy (45%). The survival tree analysis resulted in 31 subgroups. The median OS ranged from 2.7 months to 35.7 months. The strongest clinical parameter associated with survival in advanced melanoma patients with BM was the serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level. Patients with elevated LDH levels and symptomatic BM had the worst prognosis. The clinicopathological classifiers identified in this study can contribute to optimizing clinical studies and can aid doctors in giving an indication of the patients' survival based on their baseline and disease characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce is a collaborative international network of registries collecting data of atopic eczema (AE) patients receiving systemic and phototherapy with the common goal to provide long‐term real‐world data on the effectiveness, safety and cost‐effectiveness of therapies. A core dataset, consisting of domains and domain items with corresponding measurement instruments, has been developed to harmonize data collection. Objectives: We aimed to give an overview of the status and characteristics of the eight established TREAT registries, and to perform a mapping exercise to examine the degree of overlap and pooling ability between the national registry datasets. This will allow us to determine which research questions can be answered in the future by pooling data. Methods: All eight registries were asked to share their dataset and information on the current status and characteristics. The overlap between the core dataset and each registry dataset was identified (according to the domains, domain items and measurement instruments of the TREAT core dataset). Results and conclusions: A total of 4702 participants have been recruited in the eight registries as of 1st of May 2022. Of the 69 core dataset domain items, data pooling was possible for 69 domain item outcomes in TREAT NL (the Netherlands), 61 items in A‐STAR (UK and Ireland), 38 items in TREATgermany (Germany), 36 items in FIRST (France), 33 items in AtopyReg (Italy), 29 items in Biobadatop (Spain), 28 items in SCRATCH (Denmark) and 20 items in SwedAD (Sweden). Pooled analyses across all registries can be performed on multiple important domain items, covering the main aims of analysing data on the (cost‐)effectiveness and safety of AE therapies. These results will facilitate future comparative or joint analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Patient registries are key means of collecting real-world evidence, particularly during pandemics. • Successful patient registries require a high level of physician and patient engagement with broad participation to be successful. • More stringent data security, privacy, and governance requirements are increasing barriers to patient registry development. • Lessons learned from contrasting existing patient registries with those developed during the COVID-19 global pandemic are vital to the development and maintenance of patient registries that will better serve the dermatology community during and outside of future pandemics. • This contribution calls on the dermatology community to commit to collaborative development, participation, and maintenance of interoperable patient registries through the development of an international federation of patient registries. It also recognizes the rise of patient facing registries, and why patient involvement at all levels of registry design, deployment and data analysis is crucial. High-quality dermatology patient registries often require considerable time to develop and produce meaningful data. Development time is influenced by registry complexity and regulatory hurdles that vary significantly nationally and institutionally. The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has challenged health services in an unprecedented manner. Mobilization of the dermatology community in response has included rapid development and deployment of multiple, partially harmonized, international patient registries, reinventing established patient registry timelines. Partnership with patient organizations has demonstrated the critical nature of inclusive patient involvement. This global effort has demonstrated the value, capacity, and necessity for the dermatology community to adopt a more cohesive approach to patient registry development and data sharing that can lead to myriad benefits. These include improved utilization of limited resources, increased data interoperability, improved ability to rapidly collect meaningful data, and shortened response times to generate real-world evidence. We call on the global dermatology community to support the development of an international federation of patient registries to consolidate and operationalize the lessons learned during this pandemic. This will provide an enduring means of applying this knowledge to the maintenance and development of sustainable, coherent, and impactful patient registries of benefit now and in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]