Real-World Apremilast Use for Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis in Italy: Patient Perspective, Characteristics, and Clinical Outcomes from the DARWIN Study.

INTRODUCTION: While several European studies have reported real-world apremilast use, patient-perceived benefits, and treatment satisfaction, local reimbursement criteria for apremilast vary and data from Italy are limited. METHODS: The cross-sectional DARWIN study enrolled consecutive patients who had initiated apremilast for plaque psoriasis 6 (± 1) months prior to enrolment at a single visit across 24 Italian dermatological sites. Disease severity was assessed using body surface area (BSA) and Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Patient-reported outcomes assessed 6 (± 1) months after apremilast initiation were Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Patient Benefit Index (PBI), and 9-item Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9). RESULTS: Of 184 patients enrolled between July 2019 and January 2021, 180 were included in the analysis. At apremilast initiation, median (25th-75th percentile) time since psoriasis diagnosis was 8.6 (3.2-22.2) years; median BSA, 10.0% (5.0-16.0); mean (standard seviation, SD) DLQI total score, 13.5 (8.0). Over half (54.9%) of patients with available data reported psoriasis had a very or extremely large effect on their quality of life (QoL); half reported itching (50.6%) and/or special areas involvement (50.0%). Most (73.9%) had comorbidities and were biologic-naïve (81.5%). The most common reasons for initiating apremilast were lack of efficacy of previous treatment (56.7%) and contraindications to other treatments (44.4%). At 6 (± 1) months, most patients were continuing apremilast and/or reported a Global PBI score ≥ 1 (minimum clinical benefit) (86.1% and 90.0%, respectively); approximately half achieved BSA ≤ 3% and/or DLQI total score ≤ 5 (47.1% and 48.5%); 18.8% achieved PGA = 0; mean (SD) TSQM-9 global treatment satisfaction score was 59.0 (24.8). Apremilast was well tolerated; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with apremilast for 6 months in Italian clinical practice reported improved QoL, clinically relevant improvements in symptoms, high treatment satisfaction, and high treatment persistence. Our data indicate apremilast is a valuable treatment option for moderate plaque psoriasis. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04031027.

PTEN: Multiple Functions in Human Malignant Tumors.

PTEN is the most important negative regulator of the PI3K signaling pathway. In addition to its canonical, PI3K inhibition-dependent functions, PTEN can also function as a tumor suppressor in a PI3K-independent manner. Indeed, the PTEN network regulates a broad spectrum of biological functions, modulating the flow of information from membrane-bound growth factor receptors to nuclear transcription factors, occurring in concert with other tumor suppressors and oncogenic signaling pathways. PTEN acts through its lipid and protein phosphatase activity and other non-enzymatic mechanisms. Studies conducted over the past 10 years have expanded our understanding of the biological role of PTEN, showing that in addition to its ability to regulate proliferation and cell survival, it also plays an intriguing role in regulating genomic stability, cell migration, stem cell self-renewal, and tumor microenvironment. Changes in PTEN protein levels, location, and enzymatic activity through various molecular mechanisms can generate a continuum of functional PTEN levels in inherited syndromes, sporadic cancers, and other diseases. PTEN activity can indeed, be modulated by mutations, epigenetic silencing, transcriptional repression, aberrant protein localization, and post-translational modifications. This review will discuss our current understanding of the biological role of PTEN, how PTEN expression and activity are regulated, and the consequences of PTEN dysregulation in human malignant tumors.

Oral ondansetron is highly active as rescue antiemetic treatment for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: results of a randomized phase II study.

AIMS: In the present phase II randomized study, two different schedules of ondansetron were investigated as rescue antiemetic treatment for delayed emesis related to moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive a first course of MEC were randomized to ondansetron 8 mg intramuscularly (arm A) or ondansetron 16 mg orally (arm B) as rescue antiemetic treatment for delayed emesis. Efficacy and safety evaluation was performed from days 2 to 6 through the administration of a diary plus a questionnaire in which the emetic episodes and the use of the assigned rescue treatment were recorded. All patients received standard prophylaxis for delayed emesis with oral dexamethasone 8 mg daily for 4 days starting on day 2. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled into the study, of whom 44 were randomized to arm A and 45 to arm B. Twenty-two patients in each arm developed grade 1-2 delayed nausea/vomiting, all of which recurred to the rescue study treatment. Oral ondansetron resulted superior to intramuscular ondansetron in terms of complete response for nausea (77.3% vs 40.9%, respectively, p = 0.01) and vomiting (81.8% vs 31.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). Both schedules resulted to be very well tolerated, and no differences in toxicity were observed between the two arms of treatment. Furthermore, personal satisfaction about the use of the assigned rescue study medication was significantly higher in arm B. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its high efficacy and excellent tolerability, oral ondansetron is an important option in the management of MEC-related delayed emesis refractory to standard antiemetic prophylaxis.