Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) suffer from complications due to anemia, inflammation, and vaso-occlusion. Factors that trigger sickling and/or inflammation may initiate such complications, while treatment with hydroxyurea (HU) reduces their emergence and prolongs survival. On the contrary, inhibition of the BRAF-MEK-ERK pathway with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) has revolutionized treatment of melanoma but their use has been correlated with inflammatory adverse events. Thus, treatment of patients with SCD with BRAF/MEKi may be quite challenging and pyrexia in those patients should be managed as a medical emergency. In this article, intrigued by the case of a 36-year-old female patient with S/β-thal under HU who was treated with dabrafenib and trametinib for melanoma, we analyze the mechanisms underlying inflammation and vaso-occlusion in SCD, the mechanisms of pyrexia and inflammation induced by BRAF/MEKi, their potential interconnections, the shared role of the inflammasome in these two entities, and the protective effect of HU in SCD. Since SCD is the most common inheritable blood disorder, the administration of BRAF/MEKi for melanoma in patients with SCD may be a rather common challenge. Thus, proper treatment with HU may pave the way for an uneventful management of such patients.

Keywords

BRAF inhibitor case report hydroxyurea inflammation MEK inhibitor melanoma sickle cell disease

Introduction

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inheritable blood disorder worldwide. Patients with SCD present with various acute and chronic complications attributed to anemia, inflammation, and vaso-occlusive crises (VOC). Sickle cell-beta thalassemia (S/β-thal, SBT) results from the double heterozygosity of a sickle hemoglobin (HbS) mutation and a beta thalassemia allele. Hydroxyurea (HU) is the mainstay of SCD treatment, since it has been shown to reduce the emergence of devastating complications and prolong survival.^1,2 Management of the emerging complications, such as VOCs, acute chest syndrome (ACS), thrombotic episodes, and infections is crucial. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are indicated for the management and prevention of specific complications.³ Novel therapies include anti-sickling agents, targeting adhesion molecules and radical approaches such as gene therapy or gene editing, while hemopoietic stem cell transplantation is the only established curative approach.^4–7

Patient counseling and education are a crucial part of the management of patients with SCD and focuses on appreciating the importance of routine health-care encounters and early intervention for acute and chronic complications of the disease, as well as on recognizing warning signs of acute illness. Factors that trigger sickling and may cause acute complications such as VOC include dehydration, physical exhaustion, exposure to cold, sudden temperature or altitude changes, fever and infections, and their avoidance and reversal is mandatory. Avoidance of agents that may cause vasoconstriction or initiate an inflammatory process is also considered highly important. In this context, cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption, use of illicit drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, as well as G-CSF administration should be avoided.⁸ Finally, in patients with SCD, fever should be managed as a medical emergency.

Inhibition of the BRAF-MEK-ERK pathway with the use of BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKi) has proven a valuable treatment option for patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. Their use has revolutionized the management of melanoma but has also been correlated with a series of inflammatory adverse effects affecting almost every organ system. Pyrexia is one of the most common adverse effects of treatment with BRAF/MEKi, while arthralgias/myalgias, acneiform rash, erythema nodosum or other types of panniculitis, uveitis, and, more rarely, cardiomyopathy may complicate treatment. Inflammatory adverse events have been reported to complicate as much as 75% of patients in several studies.⁹

In this context, intrigued by the case of a 36-year-old female patient with SBT diagnosed with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma, effectively and uneventfully treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors, we review the literature on the inflammatory processes in patients with SCD, the protective role of HU, as well as data on the mechanisms underlying the inflammatory complications of BRAF/MEKi. Since, both melanoma and SCD are rather common conditions in the general population, the evaluation and management of melanoma in patients with SCD should not be uncommon, especially since there is available data on the increased risk of cancer and melanoma in particular in patients with SCD.¹⁰ We have followed the CARE case report guidelines when drafting this case report.¹¹

Case presentation

A 36-year-old woman was diagnosed with a stage IIA (T2b, N0, M0) melanoma of the right eyelid that had developed on a congenital nevus. Six months from diagnosis, she had a local recurrence and underwent a surgical orbital exenteration along with sentinel lymph node biopsy that was negative for malignant infiltration. Two months later, she underwent a pulmonary wedge resection for a lung nodule that proved to be metastatic.

The patient had been diagnosed with SCD (S/β-thal; genotype, βS/IVSI-1 G > A) at the age of four. She had not experienced any VOCs over the last 5 years. The staging imaging studies for melanoma revealed bilateral humeral head avascular necrosis and a necrotic lesion of the right iliac bone consistent with a bone infarct and she was started on HU at 1 g/day (20 mg/kg/day, moderate fixed dose strategy) despite the absence of VOCs over the last 5 years. Her baseline hematologic profile before HU initiation included a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 10.4 g/dL with a mean corpuscular volume (MCV) of 71.9 fL and fetal hemoglobin (HbF) and HbS levels of 26.9% and 66.1%, respectively. Following HU initiation, she did not have any VOCs or other complication and did not require any RBC transfusions. Her spleen size was measured at 12.9 × 12.6 cm by an ultrasound performed just before her lung surgery. The metastatic lesion was found to be BRAF-mutated (BRAFV600E); thus, she was started on dabrafenib at 150 mg BID and trametinib at 2 mg QD (the patient provided informed consented to treatment). Before treatment initiation, a heart ultrasound revealed no findings, while an electrocardiogram did not show a QT segment prolongation. Moreover, an ophthalmological evaluation did not reveal any findings. The Hb level at treatment initiation, while on HU for several months was 11.3 g/dL with an MCV of 95.2 fL and an Hb electrophoresis showing an HbF at 46.7% and HbS at 47.7%. Five days after treatment initiation, she had a pyrexia episode up to 39.8°C (104°F) without any localizing findings or pain. Treatment was temporarily withheld, and the clinical and laboratory evaluation (complete blood count, serum C-reactive protein, biochemical profile, urinalysis, blood and urine culture, chest X-ray) did not reveal any signs of infection thus the episode was deemed as BRAF/MEK inhibitor related (laboratory values presented in Table 1). The fever subsided 48 hours later and treatment with BRAF/MEKi was resumed 48 hours after her last fever wave with no dose reduction. No further pyrexia episodes were recorded and the patient continued uneventfully 12 months of treatment with no clinical or radiological signs of progression. A written informed consent for the publication of this case was obtained from the patient.

Table 1.

Laboratory values of the patient during the febrile episode.

Test (units)	Reference range	Result
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	12–16.5	10.7
White blood cell count (×10⁹/L)	4.0–10.0	5.7
Neutrophil count (×10⁹/L)	2.5–6.0	3.9
Platelet count (×10⁹/L)	140–440	207
Serum CRP level (mg/L)	0–5	7.3
Aspartate aminotransferase (U/L)	13–35	17
Alanine aminotransferase (U/L)	<33	22
Creatinine (mg/dL)	0.51–0.95	0.74
Lactate dehydrogenase (U/L)	135–214	227
Urinalysis	White blood cells, ⩽2–5 Bacteria, none	White blood cells, 0–1 Bacteria, none
Blood culture	Negative	Negative
Urine culture	Negative	Negative

CRP, C-reactive protein.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of administration of BRAF/MEKi in a patient with SCD or SBT (or other compound sickle cell syndromes). Treating patients with SCD with agents that may promote inflammation is a challenge for the treating physician, since an inflammatory complication of the treatment may induce a cascade of inflammatory processes leading to the initiation of a painful or thrombotic episode.^12,13 The mechanisms of inflammation in SCD are complex and involve most parts of the immune system. The main aspects of the inflammatory processes developing in patients with SCD as well as data on the mechanisms underlying the inflammatory complications of BRAF/MEKi are presented below.

Mechanisms of inflammation and vaso-occlusion in SCD

Multiple mechanisms are implicated in the emergence of VOC in SCD. Activation of adhesion molecules has been well established in several in vitro models and inhibition of adhesion molecules has recently been adopted as a therapeutic target, while inflammation and leukocytosis have a significant role as mediators of VOC. The enhanced interaction of leukocytes with the endothelium during inflammatory processes and the slow passage of the less deformable leukocytes through the microvasculature may enhance adhesion and red cell sickling proximal to the area of retarded flow.¹⁴ It has been shown that neutrophils from patients with SCD are highly sensitive to chemokine activation and adhesion, thus showing a pro-adhesive phenotype.^15,16 Finally, a higher leukocyte count has been correlated with higher mortality rates in patients with SCD,¹⁷ while extreme leukocytosis induced by the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) has been correlated with severe or fatal vaso-occlusion.¹⁸

Numerous proinflammatory molecules including cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and other peptides have been found elevated even in steady-state SCD. Circulating tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a levels have been consistently reported to be elevated in patients with SCD. TNF-a increases the adhesion of neutrophils to the endothelium¹⁹ by stimulating the expression of surface b2 integrins, leading to interactions with other cells through the NF-κΒ and MAPK signaling pathways.²⁰ Inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, have been correlated with painful or vaso-occlusive events.²¹ Furthermore, cytokines such as interleukin 1 (IL-1) and IL-6 have been found increased in patients with SCD. Increases in the level of IL-1a enhances leukocyte recruitment, endothelial cell activation, and production of several inflammatory mediators.²²

Moreover, IL-6 seems to be responsible for the high levels of acute phase proteins, even in the steady state of the disease,²³ and recent reports suggest that IL-6 levels can be used as a predictor of vaso-occlusive episodes.²⁴ IL-17, also elevated in SCD, may reflect activation of lymphocytes and may contribute to the production of cytokines and chemokines involved in leukocyte recruitment.²⁵ Chemokines such as the monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1, platelet factor 4, macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1a, end eotaxin-1 have also been found activated in SCD.^26–28

Pyrexia and inflammation induced by BRAF/MEKi

The inflammatory mechanisms of BRAFi-based treatment remain insufficiently studied and poorly understood. Nevertheless, several inflammatory markers have been proposed for the diagnosis and prediction of pyrexia in patients under treatment with BRAF/MEKi. CRP has been consistently reported elevated in patients with BRAF-induced pyrexia, while the neutrophil count has been found normal or elevated.^29,30 IL-6 and IL-1β have been also found elevated in patients with BRAFi-induced pyrexia,³¹ possibly through the activation of dendritic cells.³²

Although the above inflammatory properties represent class effects of BRAF/MEKi, certain individual agents or combinations may predispose more frequently to specific adverse events. In a recent review of the tolerability and adverse event profile of BRAF/MEKi combinations in pivotal and phase III clinical trials, it was reported that fever of any grade was more common in patients treated with dabrafenib/trametinib compared to those treated with vemurafenib/cobimetinib, or encorafenib/binimetinib (51.1% vs 28.7% vs 18.2, respectively).³³ Interestingly, pharmacokinetic analysis has showed a possible association between pyrexia and exposure to the hydroxy-dabrafenib metabolite and, to a lesser extent to dabrafenib.³⁴

The role of the inflammasome

During the past decade, inflammasome pathways have been implicated in the sterile inflammatory processes of SCD. In brief, activation of inflammasomes leads to the release of proinflammatory cytokines such as activated IL-1β and IL-18 that promote a cascade of events toward the activation of neutrophils and platelets and the upregulation of adhesion molecules and chemokines that triggers VOC.^35,36 The products of hemolysis have been shown to be a potent inflammasome activator. On the contrary, BRAF inhibition leads to caspase-1 dependent and independent activation of the inflammasome, leading to upregulation of IL-1β.³² This finding correlates pyrexia caused by BRAFi with the inflammasome and IL-1β production, when at the same time IL-1β has been identified as a major mediator of pyrexia in mice.³⁷ These correlations furthermore support the hypothesis that BRAF inhibition in patients with SCD may induce cytokine and chemokine production that may trigger inflammatory processes which may eventually lead to vaso-occlusion.

HbF levels and the protective effect of HU in SCD

It has been well established that elevated HbF levels prevent sickling of HbS and patients with high HbF levels have generally a milder clinical phenotype. Treatment with HU induces HbF production and patients who start HU with a baseline normal level of HbF (<5%) are considered to achieve a good response when HbF levels are elevated to 20%. Our patient, although diagnosed with S/β-thal, had very high baseline HbF levels even before HU initiation; this explains her mild clinical course. Starting HU with elevated HbF levels resulted in an impressively high HbF level leading to a reduction of HbS levels below 50% (the conventional target for HbS is around 30%).

HU has proven effective in changing the course of SCD, mainly by inducing fetal Hb production but also by reducing the expression of adhesion molecules, decreasing the peripheral blood neutrophil counts, ameliorating the inflammatory process, and improving nitric oxide bioavailability. It has been shown that HU reduces granulopoiesis³⁸ and reverts the high levels of myeloperoxidase, TNF-α, IL-8, IL-10, vascular endothelial growth factor, and e-selectin^39–42 thus reducing both the count and activation of neutrophils. These laboratory findings correlate with the clinical benefit of the use of HU in patients with SCD in reducing inflammation and VOC. Therefore, the highly protective combination of very elevated HbF and reduced HbS levels, along with the beneficial anti-inflammatory effect of HU may have prevented red cell sickling and related clinical acute complications during treatment with dabrafenib and trametinib.

The role of MEKi in vaso-occlusion

The use of MEKi has been correlated with central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) which is a visually threatening adverse event. Recent studies focus on the identification of clinical risk factors for CRVO in patients with melanoma treated with an MEKi. Hyperhomocysteinemia has been identified as one of them,⁴³ while hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia and glaucoma have also been reported.⁴⁴ In this context, SCD may also represent such a risk factor, although there are no relevant preclinical or clinical data. The mechanism of CRVO has been investigated in animal models and an upregulation of genes involved in oxidative stress and inflammatory responses has been found.⁴⁵ In contrast to the above, recent reports have highlighted MEK1/2 as a therapeutic target in SCD and have proposed MEKi as a means to reverse vaso-occlusion.^46,47 Nevertheless, these reports in animal models have not yet triggered their use in humans with SCD in the context of clinical trials.

Conclusion

The use of BRAF/MEKi for patients with SCD and melanoma is challenging due to the risk of pyrexia/inflammation which may eventually lead to painful crises and thrombotic complications. BRAF inhibition shares common proinflammatory pathways with SCD, and, although BRAF/MEKi are not officially contraindicated in patients with SCD, vigilance is needed for the early detection and prompt management of pyrexia. Choosing less pyrexia inducing BRAF/MEKi combinations, such as vemurafenib/cobimetinib, or encorafenib/binimetinib, could also be of some importance. The investigation and management of pyrexia and inflammation potentially attributable to BRAF/MEKi in patients with SCD should be aggressive, and pyrexia should be managed as an emergency, since triggering of VOC or other inflammatory complications is a possibility.

Furthermore, it would be prudent to review and optimize the SCD treatment plan before BRAF/MEKi initiation. HU is the gold standard of treatment in SCD and, through the effective induction of HbF and the corresponding reduction in the levels of HbS, may allow patients to receive novel therapies safely with a low risk of inflammatory complications. The multiple actions of the drug on the inflammatory and prothrombotic state of the disease possibly play a protective role, nevertheless this assumption needs further confirmation. Finally, although there are no available data, immunotherapy may be a more prudent choice for patients with SCD and BRAF-mutated melanoma who are not under treatment with HU and have high levels of HbS.

Supplemental Material

sj-jpg-1-tah-10.1177_20406207231155991 – Supplemental material for Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature

Supplemental material, sj-jpg-1-tah-10.1177_20406207231155991 for Challenges in the treatment of melanoma with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in patients with sickle cell disease: case report and review of the literature by Panagiotis T Diamantopoulos, Amalia Anastasopoulou, Maria Dimopoulou, Michalis Samarkos and Helen Gogas in Therapeutic Advances in Hematology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Panagiotis T Diamantopoulos

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Platt

. Hydroxyurea for the treatment of sickle cell anemia. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1362–1369.

Yawn

Buchanan

Afenyi-Annan

, et al. Management of sickle cell disease: summary of the 2014 evidence-based report by expert panel members. JAMA 2014; 312: 1033–1048.

Josephson

Hillyer

, et al. Transfusion in the patient with sickle cell disease: a critical review of the literature and transfusion guidelines. Transfus Med Rev 2007; 21: 118–133.

Lawal

Walters

Fitzhugh

. Allogeneic transplant and gene therapy: evolving toward a cure. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2022; 36: 1313–1335.

Hsieh

Kang

Fitzhugh

, et al. Allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2309–2317.

Ribeil

Hacein-Bey-Abina

Payen

, et al. Gene therapy in a patient with sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 848–855.

John

Namazzi

Chirande

, et al. Global perspectives on cellular therapy for children with sickle cell disease. Curr Opin Hematol 2022; 29: 275–280.

Fitzhugh

Hsieh

Bolan

, et al. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in individuals with sickle cell disease: time for a moratorium. Cytotherapy 2009; 11: 464–471.

Mackin

Pecen

Dinsmore

, et al. Inflammatory side effects of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Melanoma Res 2019; 29: 522–526.

10.

Seminog

Ogunlaja

Yeates

, et al. Risk of individual malignant neoplasms in patients with sickle cell disease: English national record linkage study. J R Soc Med 2016; 109: 303–309.

11.

Gagnier

Kienle

Altman

, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Rep 2013; 2013: bcr2013201554.

12.

Alani

Seymour

. Systemic medication and the inflammatory cascade. Periodontol 2000; 201464: 198–210.

13.

Candido

Tomasello

BMR

Lavoro

, et al. Novel insights into epigenetic regulation of IL6 pathway: in silico perspective on inflammation and cancer relationship. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22: 10172.

14.

Wagner

Eckman

Wick

. Sickle cell adhesion depends on hemodynamics and endothelial activation. J Lab Clin Med 2004; 144: 260–267. Discussion 227–228.

15.

Lum

Wun

Staunton

, et al. Inflammatory potential of neutrophils detected in sickle cell disease. Am J Hematol 2004; 76: 126–133.

16.

Finnegan

Turhan

Golan

, et al. Adherent leukocytes capture sickle erythrocytes in an in vitro flow model of vaso-occlusion. Am J Hematol 2007; 82: 266–275.

17.

Platt

Brambilla

Rosse

, et al. Mortality in sickle cell disease. Life expectancy and risk factors for early death. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1639–1644.

18.

Abboud

Laver

Blau

. Granulocytosis causing sickle-cell crisis. Lancet 1998; 351: 959.

19.

Silveira

AAA

Dominical

Almeida

, et al. TNF induces neutrophil adhesion via formin-dependent cytoskeletal reorganization and activation of β-integrin function. J Leukoc Biol 2018; 103: 87–98.

20.

Yin

. Structural basis of signal transduction in the TNF receptor superfamily. Adv Immunol 2013; 119: 135–153.

21.

Krishnan

Setty

Betal

, et al. Increased levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein at baseline are associated with childhood sickle cell vasocclusive crises. Br J Haematol 2010; 148: 797–804.

22.

Driss

Wilson

Mason

, et al. Elevated IL-1α and CXCL10 serum levels occur in patients with homozygous sickle cell disease and a history of acute splenic sequestration. Dis Markers 2012; 32: 295–300.

23.

Bourantas

Dalekos

Makis

, et al. Acute phase proteins and interleukins in steady state sickle cell disease. Eur J Haematol 1998; 61: 49–54.

24.

Domingos

Pereira-Martins

Sobreira

MJVC

, et al. High levels of proinflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IL-8 are associated with a poor clinical outcome in sickle cell anemia. Ann Hematol 2020; 99: 947–953.

25.

Keikhaei

Mohseni

Norouzirad

, et al. Altered levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in sickle cell disease patients during vaso-occlusive crises and the steady state condition. Eur Cytokine Netw 2013; 24: 45–52.

26.

dos Santos

Gonçalves

Barbosa

, et al. Monocyte chemoatractant protein-1: a potential biomarker of renal lesion and its relation with oxidative status in sickle cell disease. Blood Cells Mol Dis 2015; 54: 297–301.

27.

Westwick

Watson-Williams

Krishnamurthi

, et al. Platelet activation during steady state sickle cell disease. J Med 1983; 14: 17–36.

28.

Conran

Belcher

. Inflammation in sickle cell disease. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 2018; 68: 263–299.

29.

Macesic

Ameratunga

Grayson

, et al. Fever in melanoma: new drugs or bugs? Clin Microbiol Infect 2015; 21: e77–e78.

30.

Maeda

Yoshino

Yamashita

, et al. Dynamics of neutrophil and C-reactive protein reflect the clinical course of pyrexia during combination therapy with dabrafenib and trametinib. J Dermatol 2019; 46: 716–719.

31.

Kim

Duong

Gonzalez

, et al. Pharmacokinetic and cytokine profiles of melanoma patients with dabrafenib and trametinib-induced pyrexia. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2019; 83: 693–704.

32.

Hajek

Krebs

Bent

, et al. BRAF inhibitors stimulate inflammasome activation and interleukin 1 beta production in dendritic cells. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 28294–28308.

33.

Heinzerling

Eigentler

Fluck

, et al. Tolerability of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations: adverse event evaluation and management. ESMO Open 2019; 4: e000491.

34.

Long

Stroyakovskiy

Gogas

, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition versus BRAF inhibition alone in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 1877–1888.

35.

Zhang

Manwani

, et al. Neutrophils, platelets, and inflammatory pathways at the nexus of sickle cell disease pathophysiology. Blood 2016; 127: 801–809.

36.

Kato

Steinberg

Gladwin

. Intravascular hemolysis and the pathophysiology of sickle cell disease. J Clin Invest 2017; 127: 750–760.

37.

Kozak

Kluger

Soszynski

, et al. IL-6 and IL-1 beta in fever. Studies using cytokine-deficient (knockout) mice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 856: 33–47.

38.

Telen

Malik

Vercellotti

. Therapeutic strategies for sickle cell disease: towards a multi-agent approach. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019; 18: 139–158.

39.

Pedrosa

Leal

Lemes

RPG

. Effects of hydroxyurea on cytotoxicity, inflammation and oxidative stress markers in neutrophils of patients with sickle cell anemia: dose-effect relationship. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther 2020; 43: 468–475.

40.

Zahran

Nafady

Saad

, et al. Effect of hydroxyurea treatment on the inflammatory markers among children with sickle cell disease. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2020; 26: 1076029619895111.

41.

Penkert

Hurwitz

Thomas

, et al. Inflammatory molecule reduction with hydroxyurea therapy in children with sickle cell anemia. Haematologica 2018; 103: e50–e54.

42.

Lanaro

Franco-Penteado

Albuqueque

, et al. Altered levels of cytokines and inflammatory mediators in plasma and leukocytes of sickle cell anemia patients and effects of hydroxyurea therapy. J Leukoc Biol 2009; 85: 235–242.

43.

Francis

Diamond

Chi

, et al. MEK inhibitor-associated central retinal vein occlusion associated with hyperhomocysteinemia and MTHFR variants. Ocul Oncol Pathol 2020; 6: 159–163.

44.

Méndez-Martínez

Calvo

Ruiz-Moreno

, et al. Ocular adverse events associated with MEK inhibitors. Retina 2019; 39: 1435–1450.

45.

Huang

Yang

Matsumoto

, et al. PD0325901, a mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor, produces ocular toxicity in a rabbit animal model of retinal vein occlusion. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2009; 25: 519–530.

46.

Zennadi

. MEK1/2 as a therapeutic target in sickle cell disease. Int J Blood Res Disord 2019; 6: 38.

47.

Zhao

Schwartz

Palmer

, et al. MEK1/2 inhibitors reverse acute vascular occlusion in mouse models of sickle cell disease. FASEB J 2016; 30: 1171–1186.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.23 MB