Background:  Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. Up to 86% of advanced cancer patients experience significant pain, while 10-20% live in chronic pain. Besides, increasing prescription of opioids resulted in 33,000 deaths in the US in 2015. Both reduce patients’ functional status and quality of life. While cancer survival rates are increasing, therapeutic options for chronic opioid refractory pain are still limited. Esketamine is the s-enantiomer of ketamine, with superior analgesic effect and less psychotomimetic side effects. Intranasal esketamine was approved by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression. However, its use in chronic cancer pain has never been tested. Therefore, we propose a phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal esketamine in chronic opioid refractory cancer pain. Methods and analysis: We will recruit 120 subjects with chronic opioid refractory pain, defined as pain lasting more than 3 months despite optimal therapy with high dose opioids (>60 mg morphine equivalent dose/day) and optimal adjuvant therapy. Subjects will be randomized into two groups: intranasal esketamine (56mg) and placebo. Treatment will be administered twice a week for four consecutive weeks. The primary outcome is defined as reduction in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) after first application. Secondary outcomes include NPRS reduction after four weeks, the number of daily morphine rescue doses, functional status and satisfaction, and depression. Conclusion: This study may extend therapeutic options in patients with chronic pain, thus improving their quality of life and reducing opioid use. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT04666623. Registered on 14 December 2020

The IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD) is a systemic condition defined as a fibro-inflammatory disorder, characterized by the occurrence of tumor-like lesions in multiple organs including the eye adnexa. The main diagnostic criterion is based on histopathological findings, especially on the IgG4+/IgG+ plasma cell ratio. In this article, we reviewed the literature of non-IgG4-RD orbital conditions with IgG4 positivity. There were 20 reports of inflammatory non-IgG4-RD orbital lesions and 14 reports of orbital lymphoid proliferations with significant IgG4 positivity. The role of plasma cells IgG4 in the pathogenesis of non-IgG4-RD is not clear. Considering the large spectrum of diseases caused by a variety of different etiopathogenic mechanisms, we think that the common denominator of IgG4+ in these conditions might be related to the peculiar properties of down regulation of immune response of the IgG4 and not to a specific link to IgG4-RD.

Purpose: To summarize the development, nomenclature, and rationale of the reported use of monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) in Graves Orbitopathy (GO) and to undertake a systematic review of the management of GO with Mabs. Methods: The Pubmed and Embase databases and the Federal Brazilian searching site (Periódicos-CAPES) were screened. The authors searched all the keywords “monoclonal antibodies,” “adalimumab,” “belimumab,” “infliximab,” “rituximab,” “teprotumumab,” and “tocilizumab” combined with the terms “Graves Orbitopathy,” “Graves eye disease” and “thyroid eye disease.” All the articles published in English, French, and Spanish from 2000 to May 2022 were screened. Only publications with quantitative data on the activity of orbitopathy, proptosis, or both were included. Results: Seventy-six articles of the 954 screened records met the inclusion criteria. Seven Mabs were described for treating GO. The three most reported Mabs were Rituximab, Tocilizumab, and Teprotumumab. Only eight randomized clinical trials compared the effect of these three Mabs and Belimumab with the effect of steroids or placebos. Adalimumab, Infliximab, and K1-70 only appeared in a few case series and case reports. Frequent mild-to-moderate and few major side effects occurred with the three most used Mabs. Relapse rates ranged from 7.4% for Tocilizumab to at least 29.4% for Teprotumumab. No randomized clinical trials compared Mabs head-to-head. Conclusion: Considering the lack of head-to-head comparisons between Mabs, the relapse rate, the possibility of severe collateral effects, and the cost of Mabs, it is not clear which Mab is the safest and most useful to treat GO.