Ixekizumab-treatment-emergent photosensitive cutaneous eruption

Membranous lupus nephritis secondary to secukinumab therapy: A case report and literature review

The interleukin (IL)-17 axis is involved in many inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Secukinumab, an IL-17 inhibitor, has been approved for psoriasis treatment. There are accumulating cases of lupus erythematosus induced by IL-17 inhibition. Lupus nephritis after IL-17 inhibition has not been reported. We report the case of a 57-year-old man who developed membranous lupus nephritis after secukinumab treatment for psoriasis. Anti-SSA and PM-Scl antibodies were positive. dsDNA, anti-Smith, and anti-histone antibodies were negative, and serum complement was low. Secukinumab was discontinued, while tacrolimus was initiated, subsequently switched to cyclosporin, belimumab, glucocorticosteroid, and hydroxychloroquine with a good response. The relationship between lupus erythematosus and IL-17 inhibition requires further research.

The dark side of the moon: the immune-mediated adverse events of IL-17A/IL-17R inhibition

As aberrant IL-17 signaling plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, biologic agents targeting this pathway have become an important weapon against this disease. Some biologic agents such as IL-17 inhibitors (secukinumab and ixekizumab) and the IL-17 receptor (IL17R) inhibitor (brodalumab) are relatively safe, tolerable and efficacious drugs. Nevertheless, side effects of IL-17 pathway inhibition occur. This review focuses on the dermatological manifestations linked to these treatments. Paradoxical psoriasis and atopic-like eczema may be the most common cutaneous adverse events, while manifestations such as neutrophilic dermatoses, hypersensitivity reactions, lichenoid eruptions, vasculitides, bullous diseases, lupus-like reactions, pigmentation disorders, adnexal diseases and granulomatous dermatoses have been described less frequently.

Case Reports of DRESS Syndrome and Symptoms Consistent with DRESS Syndrome Following Treatment with Recently Marketed Monoclonal Antibodies

Background

Monoclonal antibodies constitute a potent and broadly tolerable drug class, representing for some conditions the first newly approved treatment in years. As such, many are afforded “fast-track” or “breakthrough therapy” designations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, leading to provisional approval before Phase III clinical trials are reported. Although these drugs are usually safe, some patients experience life-threatening complications—myositis and encephalitis have led to permanent or temporary recalls. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a hypersensitivity condition easily missed due to its long incubation period and nonspecific presentation. This minireview is primarily intended as an abbreviated guide for practitioners who may be using these powerful treatments.

Methodology

We searched PubMed using a string of symptoms consistent with DRESS syndrome and monoclonal antibodies approved by the FDA since 2015. Then, we excluded studies reporting dermatological complications of reactivation of nonherpetic infection, immunodeficiency-related infection, or reactions to the injection site or infusion. We searched for and accessed prior reviews and background studies via PubMed, Mendeley, and Google Scholar.

Results

Two cases of DRESS syndrome were identified in the literature, both the result of treatment with daclizumab. There was one additional case of encephalitis without cutaneous symptoms caused by daclizumab. Drug-induced hypersensitivity dermatitis was reported following treatment with nivolumab and two cases of combination treatment with ipilimumab and either nivolumab or durvalumab produced maculopapular rash and bullae in the first patient and lichenoid dermatitis and blisters in the second patient.

Conclusions

Daclizumab was the only recently approved monoclonal antibody associated with DRESS syndrome as such. Limitations in the diagnostic reliability of DRESS syndrome as a clinical entity and the lack of negative clinical trial reporting suggest enhanced vigilance on the part of clinicians and regulators may be warranted.