Presentation and Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity to Platinum Drugs

Interleukin-6 as a biomarker of hypersensitivity reactions in chemotherapeutics and monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

In recent years, a new type of immediate hypersensitivity reaction known as cytokine release began to emerge, and within this phenotype of reactions, interleukin-6 is the most frequently associated with the presence during drug administration. Chemotherapeutic agents (QT) and monoclonal antibodies.

OBJECTIVE

Determine interleukin-6 levels in hypersensitivity reactions to QT and monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

Observational and prospective study that was carried out from March 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022 in a university hospital in northeastern Mexico. Symptoms, severity, interleukin-6 levels, and skin tests of hypersensitivity reaction were evaluated at QT and monoclonal antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients with oncological disease were included, the most frequent being ovarian cancer. Symptoms as initial hypersensitivity reaction were neuromuscular in taxanes and cutaneous in Platinums.41.5% presented elevation of interleukin-6, and it was found more frequently in presence of metastases. Positive skin tests were found more frequently in the carboplatin and doxorubicin groups. The most frequently presented phenotype was type I in paclitaxel, carboplatin, and doxorubicin, and mixed-reaction (type I and cytokine release) in oxaliplatin.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions to biologic and antineoplastic therapies, interleukin-6 should be recognized as a biomarker in immediate hypersensitivity reactions to QT and monoclonal antibodies.

Platinum-based chemotherapy: trends in organic nanodelivery systems

Despite the investment in platinum drugs research, cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin are still the only Pt-based compounds used as first line treatments for several cancers, with a few other compounds being approved for administration in some Asian countries. However, due to the severe and worldwide impact of oncological diseases, there is an urge for improved chemotherapeutic approaches. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical application of platinum complexes is hindered by their inherent toxicity and acquired resistance. Nanodelivery systems rose as a key strategy to overcome these challenges, with recognized versatility and ability towards improving the safety, bioavailability and efficacy of the available drugs. Among the known nanocarriers, organic systems have been widely applied, taking advantage of their potential as drug vehicles. Researchers have mainly focused on the development of lipidic and polymeric carriers, including supramolecular structures, with an overall improvement of encapsulated platinum complexes. Herein, an overview of recent trends and strategies is presented, with the main focus on the encapsulation of platinum compounds into organic nanocarriers, showcasing the evolution in the design and development of these promising systems. This comprehensive review highlights formulation methods as well as characterization procedures, providing insights that may be helpful for the development of novel platinum nanocarriers aiming at future pharmaceutical applications.

Successful switch to cisplatin-based chemotherapy in a patient with lung cancer who developed a carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reaction

INTRODUCTION

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line therapy for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although carboplatin-induced hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) commonly occur following multiple cycles of therapy, they are rarely observed during the first cycle of the treatment.

CASE REPORT

Here, we report the case of a 70-year-old man with advanced-stage NSCLC who developed HSR possibly caused by carboplatin during the first cycle of induction with platinum-doublet chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab. The patient presented with bronchial obstruction due to a centrally located tumor. No driver mutations were detected, and the programmed death-ligand 1 expression ranged from 1% to 24%. Consequently, the patient was treated with pembrolizumab combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel. However, immediately after the start of carboplatin, the blood pressure and oxygen levels of the patient dropped and he began exhibiting an altered level of consciousness. These findings indicated carboplatin-induced anaphylaxis. Hypotension and oxygen desaturation improved following carboplatin discontinuation and normal saline administration.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

The basophil activation test for both carboplatin and cisplatin was negative. Thus, the risk of anaphylaxis owing to both drugs was ruled out, and carboplatin was believed to have induced grade 3 HSR. Subsequently, carboplatin-based chemotherapy was switched to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. HSR was not observed during the four treatment cycles with pembrolizumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed, and best response was partial response.

DISCUSSION

Cisplatin-based chemotherapy could be used as an alternate treatment in patients with NSCLC who develop severe carboplatin-induced HSR.

Glioma-targeted oxaliplatin/ferritin clathrate reversing the immunosuppressive microenvironment through hijacking Fe2+ and boosting Fenton reaction

Glioma is easy to develop resistance to temozolomide (TMZ). TMZ-resistant glioma secretes interleukin-10 (IL-10) and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), recruiting regulatory T cell (Treg) and inhibiting the activity of T cells and natural killer cell (NK cell), subsequently forming an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Oxaliplatin (OXA) greatly inhibits the proliferation of TMZ-resistant glioma cells, but the ability of OXA to cross blood-brain barrier (BBB) is weak. Thus, the therapeutic effect of OXA on glioma is not satisfactory. Transferrin receptor 1 (TfR1) is highly expressed in brain capillary endothelial cells and TMZ-resistant glioma cells. In this study, OXA was loaded into ferritin (Fn) to prepare glioma-targeted oxaliplatin/ferritin clathrate OXA@Fn. OXA@Fn efficiently crossed BBB and was actively taken up by TMZ-resistant glioma cells via TfR1. Then, OXA increased the intracellular H2O2 level and induced the apoptosis of TMZ-resistant glioma cells. Meanwhile, Fn increased Fe2+ level in TMZ-resistant glioma cells. In addition, the expression of ferroportin 1 was significantly reduced, resulting in Fe2+ to be locked up inside the TMZ-resistant glioma cells. This subsequently enhanced the Fenton reaction and boosted the ferroptosis of TMZ-resistant glioma cells. Consequently, T cell mediated anti-tumor immune response was strongly induced, and the immunosuppressive microenvironment was significantly reversed in TMZ-resistant glioma tissue. Ultimately, the growth and invasion of TMZ-resistant glioma was inhibited by OXA@Fn. OXA@Fn shows great potential in the treatment of TMZ-resistant glioma and prospect in clinical transformation.

Differential presentation of hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin: Phenotypes, endotypes, and management with desensitization

BACKGROUND

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to platinum-based drugs are heterogenous and restrict their access, and drug desensitization (DD) has provided a ground-breaking procedure for their re-introduction, although the response is heterogeneous. We aimed to identify the phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers of reactions to carboplatin and oxaliplatin and their response to DD.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients presenting with DHRs to oxaliplatin (N = 46) and carboplatin (N = 33) were evaluated at the Allergy Departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Spain. Patient symptoms, skin testing, biomarkers, and outcomes of 267 DDs were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Oxaliplatin-reactive patients presented with type I (74%), cytokine release reaction (CRR) (11%), and mixed (Mx) (15%) phenotypes. In contrast, carboplatin reactive patients presented with predominantly type I (85%) and Mx (15%) but no CRRs. Out of 267 DDs, breakthrough reactions (BTRs) to oxaliplatin occurred twice as frequently as carboplatin (32% vs. 15%; p < .05). Phenotype switching from type I to another phenotype was observed in 46% of oxaliplatin DDs compared to 21% of carboplatin DDs. Tryptase was elevated in type I and Mx reactions, and IL-6 in CRR and Mx, indicating different mechanisms and endotypes.

CONCLUSION

Carboplatin and oxaliplatin induced three different types of reactions with defined phenotypes and endotypes amendable to DD. Although most of the initial reactions for both were type I, oxaliplatin presented with unique CRR reactions. During DD, carboplatin reactive patients presented mostly type I BTR, while oxaliplatin-reactive patients frequently switched from type I to CRR, providing a critical difference and the need for personalized DD protocols.

A Modified Basophil Activation Test for the Clinical Management of Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions to Paclitaxel: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (iHSRs) to taxanes are observed in 6% and 4% of gynecologic and breast cancer patients, respectively. Drug desensitization is the only option, as no comparable alternative therapy is available. Surfactants in the taxane formulation have been implicated in the immunopathogenesis of iHSRs, although sporadic skin test (ST) positivity and iHSRs to nab-paclitaxel have suggested the involvement of the taxane moiety and/or IgE-mediated pathomechanisms. In vitro diagnostic tests might offer insights into mechanisms underlying iHSRs to taxanes. The aim of the present study was to address this unmet need by developing a novel basophil activation test (BAT). The study included patients (n = 31) undergoing paclitaxel/carboplatin therapy. Seventeen patients presented with iHSRs to paclitaxel (iHSR-Taxpos), and eleven were tolerant (iHSR-Taxneg). Fourteen patients presented with iHSRs to carboplatin (iHSR-Plpos), and fourteen were tolerant (iHSR-Plneg). The BAT median stimulation index (SI) values were 1.563 (range, 0.02-4.11; n = 11) and -0.28 (range -4.88-0.07, n = 11) in iHSR-Taxpos and iHSR-Taxneg, respectively. The BAT median SI values were 4.45 (range, 0.1-26.7; n = 14) and 0 (range, -0.51-1.65; n = 12) in iHSR-Plpos and iHSR-Plneg, respectively. SI levels were not associated with iHSR severity grading. Comparing BAT results in iHSR-Taxpos and iHSR-Taxneg showed the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve to be 0.9752 (p = 0.0002). The cutoff calculated by the maximized likelihood ratio identified 90.91% of iHSR-Taxpos patients and 90.91% of iHSR-Taxneg patients. Comparing BAT results for iHSR-Plpos and iHSR-Plneg showed the area under the ROC curve to be 0.9286 (p = 0.0002). The cutoff calculated by the maximized likelihood ratio identified 78.57% of iHSR-Plpos patients and 91.67% of iHSR-Plneg patients. Most iHSR-Taxpos patients for which ST was available (10/11) scored ST-negative and BAT-positive, whereas most iHSR-Plpos patients for which ST was available (14/14) scored both BAT- and ST-positive. This suggested the intervention of non-IgE-mediated mechanisms in iHSR-Taxpos patients. Consistent with this view, an in silico molecular docking analysis predicted the high affinity of paclitaxel to the degranulation-competent MRGPRX2 receptor. This hypothesis warrants further in vitro investigations. In conclusion, the present study provides preliminary proof-of-concept evidence that this novel BAT has potential utility in understanding mechanisms underlying iHSRs to taxanes.

Interdisciplinary Healthcare Team Experience of Carboplatin and Oxaliplatin Desensitizations in a Tertiary Referral University Hospital

Purpose

Repeated exposure to platinum compounds increases the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR). To date, many different desensitization protocols with varying success rates have been reported. The presented study is aimed at disseminating the real-world experience of an interdisciplinary healthcare team focusing on platin desensitization.

Patients and Methods

This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 7 female patients with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSRs. After a discussion with the oncologist and the patient, desensitization protocols were performed by a team consisting of an allergy and immunology specialist, a clinical pharmacist, and a nurse. Clinical data were extracted from the patients' medical records, and HSRs were reviewed and classified by an allergist according to severity and type.

Results

Twenty-five desensitization protocols were carried out for patients with carboplatin- or oxaliplatin-induced HSRs (N=4 and N=3, respectively; age range: 54-66). Two of the patients did not experience any HSR during a total of 8 desensitization cycles. The other patients had grade 1-3 HSRs on 15 cycles, which were successfully managed by oxygen and/or pharmacological interventions and infusions were resumed at a lower rate after stabilization of the patient. Compared to baseline, serum tryptase levels were elevated during HSRs (4.77±0.21 vs 9.50±1.71, P=0.028).

Conclusion

All the patients were able to finish the treatment protocol and receive full chemotherapeutic doses. Interdisciplinary teams may facilitate the preparation and administration of platinum-based chemotherapeutics and increase the success rates of desensitization protocols for platin-based chemotherapy, where the concentration and application of drugs differ from standard procedure.

Hypersensitivity Reaction and Rapid Drug Desensitization with Chemotherapeutics: A Tertiary Reference Center Experiences

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy drugs have been in our lives for a long time, and all agents have the potential to develop hypersensitivity. Rapid drug desensitization is an option when hypersensitivity develops. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics, diagnostic processes, and treatment results of patients with chemotherapeutic agent hypersensitivity who applied to our tertiary reference center.

METHODS

Patients who applied to our tertiary allergy outpatient clinic between January 2016 and September 2022 due to chemotherapy-induced drug hypersensitivity were examined. Demographic data of the patients, cancer diagnoses, chemotherapy regimens, skin tests, premedication scheme, desensitization cycle were evaluated. We applied a 16-step desensitization in patients with index reaction anaphylaxis or positive skin tests. If the index reaction was not anaphylaxis or skin tests were negative, we applied a 12-step desensitization. If the prick test with chemotherapeutic drugs was negative especially with taxanes, premedication was administered. We used the montelukast, cetirizine, and methylprednisolone for premedication.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were evaluated; 35 (68.6%) were female. The most common malignancy was colorectal cancer in 17 (33.3%) patients. The most common agent responsible for hypersensitivity was oxaliplatin in 17 (33.3%) patients, followed by paclitaxel in 13 (25.4%). When the symptoms of immediate reaction to chemotherapeutic drugs were analyzed as described in the EAACI position paper, only skin and mucosal involvement was seen in 24 (46.8%) patients; only respiratory system involvement or back pain was seen in 3 (6.2%) patients; multisystem involvement meeting the criteria for anaphylaxis was seen in 24 (47%) patients. Skin test was positive in 17 (56.6%) of 30 patients who developed a reaction with platin. Prolonged anaphylaxis was developed in 1 patient, and desensitization was not performed again. Fifty of 51 patients were able to receive the target chemotherapy dose by desensitization. In total, a 172-step desensitization was applied to 51 patients.

CONCLUSION

If completing the cycle is considered a treatment success, this was achieved in 98% (50/51) patients with rapid drug desensitization. This gives us the opportunity to use first-line chemotherapy agents.

[Drug allergy: Fundamental aspects in diagnosis and treatment.]

BACKGROUND

Any substance used as a treatment for any disease can produce harmful or unpleasant events called adverse drug reactions (ADRs). They are due to inherent biological effects of the drug and are caused by immunological and non-immunological mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the immunological mechanisms of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to drugs, their epidemiology, risk factors, classification, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

METHODS

A review of the most current literature in English and Spanish was carried out, in the main databases, related to the HSR of various drug groups.

RESULTS

This study describes the terms used to define ADRs and HSRs, their classification and clinical manifestations, current diagnostic tools, treatment algorithms and prognosis of the most frequently used medications and with the highest prevalence of reported adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ADRs are a challenging entity, with a complex pathophysiology that has not been fully understood. Its approach requires a careful consideration since not all drugs have validated tests for their diagnosis nor a specific treatment. When indicating the use of any drug, the severity of the disease, the availability of other treatments and the potential risks of developing future adverse events should always be taken into consideration.

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to antineoplastic agents - A practical guide for the oncologist

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) to antineoplastic agents occur frequently, and every oncologist will encounter these reactions in their clinical practice at some point. The clinical signature of IHRs can range from mild to life-threatening, and their occurrence can substantially impede the treatment course of patients with cancer. Yet, clear guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management are scarce, especially from an oncologic point of view. Therefore, herein, we review the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and management of IHRs to chemotherapeutic agents and monoclonal antibodies. First, we focus on defining the specific entities that comprise IHRs and discuss their underlying mechanisms. Then, we summarize the epidemiology for the antineoplastic agents that represent the most common causes of IHRs, i.e., platinum compounds, taxanes and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Next, we describe the possible clinical pictures and the comprehensive diagnostic work-up that should be executed to identify the culprit and safe alternatives for the future. Finally, we finish with reviewing the treatment options in both the acute phase and after recovery, with the aim to improve the oncologic care of patients with cancer.

Allergy in Cancer Care: Antineoplastic Therapy-Induced Hypersensitivity Reactions

As the backbone of oncological treatments, systemic chemotherapy is still one of the main pawns in cancer care, alone or in combination with newer targeted agents. All chemotherapy agents can be associated with a type of adverse event called an infusion reaction, which can be characterized as unpredictable, non-dose related, and unexplained by the cytotoxic profile of the drug. For some of these events, a certain immunological mechanism can be identified by blood or skin testing. In this case, we can speak of true hypersensitivity reactions that occur as a response to an antigen/allergen. The current work summarizes the main antineoplastic therapy agents and their susceptibility to induce hypersensitivity reactions and also includes a review of clinical presentation, diagnostic methods in hypersensitivity reactions, and perspectives to overcome these negative events in the treatment of patients suffering from various types of cancer.

Calmangafodipir for Prevention of Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Two Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Phase 3 Studies (POLAR-A/POLAR-M)

BACKGROUND

Calmangafodipir (CaM, PledOx) demonstrated efficacy in preventing patient-reported chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in a randomized phase 2 study in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The Preventive Treatment of OxaLiplatin Induced peripherAl neuRopathy (POLAR) program aimed to assess efficacy and safety of CaM in the prevention of CIPN in patients treated with oxaliplatin in adjuvant (POLAR-A, ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT04034355) or metastatic (POLAR-M, ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT03654729) settings.

METHODS

Two randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials investigated patient-reported, moderate-to-severe CIPN 9 months after beginning folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin therapy with or without CaM. In POLAR-A, patients with stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive CaM 5 μmol/kg or placebo. In POLAR-M, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive CaM 5 μmol/kg, CaM 2 μmol/kg, or placebo.

RESULTS

POLAR-A (n = 301) and POLAR-M (n = 291) were terminated early following unexpected hypersensitivity reactions in CaM-treated patients. In a combined analysis of month 9 CIPN (primary endpoint) data from both trials (CaM 5 μmol/kg, n = 175; placebo, n = 176), 54.3% of patients in the CaM group had moderate-to-severe CIPN compared with 40.3% in the placebo group. The estimated relative risk for moderate-to-severe CIPN at month 9 was 1.37 (95% confidence interval = 1.01 to 1.86; P = .045). A higher proportion of patients experienced serious hypersensitivity reactions across both trials with CaM treatment (3.6%) than with placebo (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

The POLAR clinical studies failed to meet their primary endpoint. These results highlight the challenges of targeting oxidative stress for preventing CIPN in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings.

Successful desensitization after hypersensitivity reaction to cisplatin in a patient with nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Hypersensitivity reaction to cisplatin can result in discontinuation of chemoradiotherapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We describe a patient with nasopharyngeal carcinoma who developed cisplatin hypersensitivity and was successfully treated with cisplatin desensitization. Furthermore, it had little impact on the therapeutic performance of cisplatin-combined chemoradiotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of an outpatient 12-step desensitization protocol for antineoplastic agents

OBJECTIVE

Antineoplastic agents can cause hypersensitivity reactions that may preclude further treatment, possibly compromising patient outcome if the tumor remains sensitive to such agent. Although desensitization protocols can be used to re-introduce agents after the development of a hypersensitivity reaction, these protocols vary across institutions. Our study evaluated the safety and efficacy of our desensitization protocol.

METHODS

All patients who underwent desensitization to platinum, taxane, liposomal doxorubicin, or trastuzumab between November 2016 and May 2021 after a prior hypersensitivity reaction to the specific agent were included in a retrospective review. The 12-step, outpatient desensitization protocol included pretreatment with a leukotriene receptor antagonist, antihistamines, and corticosteroids, as well as extended infusion times. Successful desensitization was defined as the completion of ≥3 cycles without discontinuation of the agent due to a hypersensitivity reaction.

RESULTS

A total of 186 eligible patients were included. Median age was 59.5 years (range 26-87). 155 (83%) patients were treated with platinum. 55 (30%) patients were treated for colorectal cancer and 52 (28%) for ovarian cancer. 104 (56%) patients completed ≥3 cycles of therapy during desensitization. The median infusion time was 380 min (range 325-360 min). The median number of desensitization cycles was 3, with 694 cycles completed among all patients. A total of 79 (42%) patients had a breakthrough hypersensitivity reaction during desensitization, 4 of whom required epinephrine, and 84 (45%) patients discontinued the agent undergoing desensitization due to progression of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Our outpatient 12-step, institutional desensitization protocol for antineoplastic therapy proved safe and efficacious, with 56% of patients successfully completing ≥3 cycles and not requiring an inpatient admission.

Standards for practical intravenous rapid drug desensitization & delabeling: A WAO committee statement

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients. Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally. The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe. This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Olaparib With or Without Cediranib Versus Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Recurrent Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer (NRG-GY004): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, but complications from repeated platinum therapy occur. We assessed the activity of two all-oral nonplatinum alternatives, olaparib or olaparib/cediranib, versus platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

NRG-GY004 is an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Eligible patients had high-grade serous or endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to platinum-based chemotherapy, olaparib, or olaparib/cediranib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included activity within germline BRCA-mutated or wild-type subgroups and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

Between February 04, 2016, and November 13, 2017, 565 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI, 8.7 to 11.2), 8.2 (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.7), and 10.4 (95% CI, 8.5 to 12.5) months with chemotherapy, olaparib, and olaparib/cediranib, respectively. Olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.10; P = .077). In women with germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.94) for olaparib/cediranib and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.07) for olaparib. In women without a germline BRCA mutation, the PFS HR versus chemotherapy was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.30) for olaparib/cediranib and 1.41 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.86) for olaparib. Hematologic adverse events occurred more commonly with chemotherapy; however, nonhematologic adverse events were higher with olaparib/cediranib. In 489 patients evaluable for PROs, patients receiving olaparib/cediranib scored on average 1.1 points worse on the NFOSI-DRS-P subscale (97.5% CI, -2.0 to -0.2, P = .0063) versus chemotherapy; no difference between olaparib and chemotherapy was observed.

CONCLUSION

Combination olaparib/cediranib did not improve PFS compared with chemotherapy and resulted in reduced PROs. Notably, in patients with a germline BRCA mutation, both olaparib and olaparib/cediranib had significant clinical activity.

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: an EAACI Position Paper

Chemotherapeutic drugs have been widely used in the treatment of cancer disease for about 70 years. The development of new treatments has not hindered their use, and oncologists still prescribe them routinely, alone or in combination with other antineoplastic agents. However, all chemotherapeutic agents can induce hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), with different incidences depending on the culprit drug. These reactions are the third leading cause of fatal drug-induced anaphylaxis in the United States. In Europe, deaths related to chemotherapy have also been reported. In particular, most reactions are caused by platinum compounds, taxanes, epipodophyllotoxins and asparaginase. Despite their prevalence and relevance, the ideal pathways for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of these reactions are still unclear, and practice remains considerably heterogeneous with vast differences from center to center. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the allergological work-up in this field of drug hypersensitivity reactions. This position paper aims to provide consensus on the investigation of HSRs to chemotherapeutic drugs and give practical recommendations for clinicians that treat these patients, such as oncologists, allergologists and internists. Key sections cover risk factors, pathogenesis, symptoms, the role of skin tests, in vitro tests, indications and contraindications of drug provocation tests and desensitization of neoplastic patients with allergic reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs. Statements, recommendations and unmet needs were discussed and proposed at the end of each section.

Omalizumab for successful chemotherapy desensitisation: What we know so far

BACKGROUND

Hypersensitivity reactions induced by chemotherapeutic drugs may influence the course of the oncologic disease by preventing doctors from prescribing first-line therapy. In order to prevent another hypersensitivity reaction to the culprit chemotherapeutic agent, the physician can decide between two possibilities: premedication or desensitisation protocols. Rapid drug desensitisation showed successful results for most patients, but some of them may develop symptoms. Although omalizumab is not licensed as premedication or adjuvant therapy in chemotherapy desensitisation protocols, there have been published some case reports and small sample size studies that indicated promising results.

METHODS

We reviewed all the published literature regarding the use of omalizumab during chemotherapy desensitisation protocols.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We found a great heterogeneity between the doses and the interval between omalizumab injections and chemotherapy - rapid drug desensitisation, but most of the studies showed promising results. As a corollary, we propose a dose regimen of omalizumab administered before the first desensitisation protocol. Then, omalizumab should be administered one day before every chemotherapy regimen. Omalizumab might be used as an adjuvant therapy and might be a solution for a hopeless situation.

Comparative Assessment of Platinum Salts and Taxane Group Hypersensitivity Reactions, The Role of Skin Tests in Diagnosis?

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the role of skin tests (ST) in the diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) with platinum salts (PS) and taxane (TX) groups drugs and their reliability in patient management.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Patients' data who developed immediate HSR with PS and TX were recorded and ST was performed. The gradual challenge was applied to all patients with ST negative and grade 1-2 with the suspect drug.

RESULTS

In total, the data of 104 patients (74 with PS, 30 with TX) who developed HSR against PS and TX were shared. The gradual challenge was applied to 72 ST negative and grade 1-2 patients (46 PS group, 26 TX group). The gradual challenge was negative in 39 patients in the PS group and 23 patients in the Tx group. The negative predictive value (NPV) for PS was 83% and NPV for TX was 88%. We found significantly higher skin test positivity in patients with PS and TX and grade 3 HSR (p = 0.007, p = 0.001). A significant correlation was found between skin test positivity and early onset of symptoms (p = 0.001 for PS, p = 0.015 for TX). In terms of symptoms witnessed in HSR, we observed the itching, urticaria, hypotension, syncope, and abdominal pain symptoms significantly more in the group with a positive skin test (p < 0.024, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.002, and p < 0.025, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found very high NPV values for PS and TX. We found that the gradual challenge applied to patients with negative skin tests is reliable if Grade 3 HSR is not observed and with this approach, unnecessary desensitization processes and/or drug alterations can be avoided.

The Role of Skin Tests in the Prevention and Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents in Gynecological Cancer: A Single-Center Italian Retrospective Study

Simple Summary

The development of hypersensitivity reactions to platinum agents in patients with gynecological cancers limits the use of platinum re-treatment for recurrent disease. In those patients who developed a hypersensitivity reactions during treatment with platinum agents it could be safer to undergo allergy diagnosis. This approach includes the in-vivo skin tests before re-exposure to the platinum agent, especially in those patients who have to undergo a 2nd or 3rd line therapy. In our experience, skin test for platinum agents resulted in a simple and sensitive tool for the diagnosis and prevention of hypersensitivity reactions to platinum agents. In addition, this approach identified a sub-group of patients that became sensitized to the platinum agent during the previous platinum-based therapy.

Abstract

Background: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR)s to platinum agents are increasing in frequency, due to their extensive use and repeated exposures in patients with increased life expectancy. The aims of our study are to analyze the frequency of both type I and type IV HSRs in patients with gynecological cancer treated with (CBDCA) carboplatin and/or (CDDP) cisplatin, to evaluate the role of skin tests in the diagnosis and prevention of HSRs. Methods: From 2011 to 2018, we evaluated 124 consecutive female patients previously treated with CBDCA and/or CDDP for gynecological cancer. All patients, including those with and without HSR to previous platinum-based therapy, underwent in-vivo skin tests for platinum agents before starting the second or more therapeutic lines. To reduce the risk of false negative results, patients with a negative skin test at the first evaluation were re-tested after 3 weeks from the platinum re-exposure. Results: Among the 124 patients evaluated, 58 (47%) experienced HSRs to at least one platinum agent: 35% were to CBDCA, 5% to CDDP, 7% to both. Fifty-six of the 58 HSRs were classified as immediate and two delayed. Skin tests confirmed an IgE-dependent mechanism in 67% of patients with immediate-HSRs to CBDCA and identified a cross-reactivity between platinum agents in 18% of patients. Moreover, among those who had never developed an HSRs during platinum-based therapy, in-vivo skin tests identified 12% of sensitized patients. Conclusions: On the basis of our findings, skin test for platinum agents is a simple and sensitive tool for the diagnosis and prevention of HSRs to CBDCA and/or CDDP and can be useful for detecting possible cross-reactivity among platinum agents.

Drug fever induced by carboplatin-based regimens: Higher incidence in a women's hospital

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have reported low incidence of carboplatin-related drug fever in early cancer treatment cycles. This study describes and analyzes relatively higher incidence rate of carboplatin-related drug fever associated with gynecologic cancer chemotherapy in order to allay anxiety in patients and avoid unnecessary interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All gynecologic cancer cases treated with carboplatin in a women's hospital in 2017 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Data for patients who experienced carboplatin-induced drug fever and those who received the same treatment but did not experience drug fever were compared for statistical significance. Risk factors for drug fever were identified by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 318 females with a mean age of 52 years were included in the analysis. Drug fever was observed in 25 patients (7.86%) in 45 cycles of total 1605 carboplatin-containing infusions. Fever occurred at a median of the third (range: 1-7) cycle, starting at 10.62 h (range: 1.18-50.35 h) after carboplatin infusion, and was generally controlled within 3 days. After chemotherapy rechallenge, the mean frequency of drug fever was 2 times per patient (range: 1-4 times). There were 35/45 drug fever incidents (77.78%) that were classified as grade II; in 15/45 cases (33.33%), antibiotic treatment was immediately initiated to prevent infection. Younger age was found to be a risk factor for drug fever following carboplatin treatment (odds ratio = 0.126, 95% confidence interval: 0.025-0.628; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The retrospective analysis demonstrated that carboplatin-induced drug fever, which occurred on post treatment 3 days, was a type of delayed hypersensitivity reaction with an incidence rate of 7.86% in gynecologic cancer. Younger age was identified as a risk factor. Drug fever is generally tolerated by patients, who insist on chemotherapy. Knowledge of carboplatin-induced drug fever may help physicians reach timely recognition for appropriate interventions.

Drug Desensitizations for Chemotherapy: Safety and Efficacy in Preventing Anaphylaxis

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic drugs are increasing due to the expanding use of classical and new drugs in a wide variety of malignancies. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to provide current best practices in the diagnosis and management of HSRs based on data and evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: A plethora of studies have provided evidence of the safety and efficacy of rapid drug desensitizations (RDD) to allow for the reintroduction of antineoplastic drugs following an HSR, based on risk stratification. Recently described biomarkers such as basophil activation test, total IgE, BRCA genotyping, and serum IL-6 can aid in guiding improved precision desensitization protocols. Personalized premedication regimens and protocols have improved RDD safety and outcomes. RDD allows for the continued use of chemotherapeutic drugs without impaired drug efficacy. RDD represents the best approach to maintain cancer patients on their most effective treatments.

Incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in patients on H1-receptor antagonists receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE

This study determined the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy while on H1-receptor antagonists (H1RAs). Prophylaxis for patients receiving oxaliplatin is not currently recommended. H1RAs are used for the treatment of reactions; however, prophylactic H1RAs have not been well-studied.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review included patients with solid tumor malignancies who received H1RAs while on oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy between August 1, 2016 and October 31, 2019.

RESULTS

Of fifty-one patients, there were four hypersensitivity reactions (8%), most of which were mild, occurred within 60 minutes of the start of the infusion, and did not result in an interruption in treatment. One severe reaction occurred, which required discontinuation of therapy. Forty-two patients (82%) were able to receive at least 9 cycles of oxaliplatin without a reported reaction.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, the incidence rate of hypersensitivity reactions in patients receiving oxaliplatin while on H1RAs was lower than reported in previous literature. Most reactions were mild, and patients were able to continue oxaliplatin-based therapy. With future, randomized controlled trials, H1RAs may prove to be effective in preventing or delaying the onset of hypersensitivity reactions related to oxaliplatin.

Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis to checkpoint inhibitor-monoclonal antibodies and desensitization

OBJECTIVE

To review type 1 hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis to checkpoint inhibitor-monoclonal antibodies and its management with drug desensitization.

DATA SOURCES

English-language literature on MEDLINE regarding hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, and checkpoint inhibitor-monoclonal antibodies.

STUDY SELECTIONS

References were selected based on relevance, novelty, robustness, and applicability.

RESULTS

There are well-known tissue toxicities associated to checkpoint inhibitors, but hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been underreported. The presentation of these reactions is based on clinical phenotypes with underlying endotypes identified by specific biomarkers. Drug desensitizations have been successfully applied to checkpoint inhibitor drugs to allow patients with cancer to receive first-line therapies. This review provides current best practices for the recognition and diagnosis of hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis to checkpoint inhibitors and their management using drug desensitization.

CONCLUSION

Hypersensitivity reactions and anaphylaxis have been identified as potential adverse effects induced by checkpoint inhibitor-monoclonal antibodies. Drug desensitization is a safe and effective treatment option for patients who experience hypersensitivity reactions in need of these monoclonal antibodies to improve cancer outcomes.

Drug hypersensitivity in the fast lane: What clinicians should know about phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers

OBJECTIVE

To review novel concepts in drug hypersensitivity and the management of immediate hypersensitivity reactions.

DATA SOURCES

English language literature on MEDLINE and Embase surrounding drug hypersensitivity and desensitization.

STUDY SELECTIONS

References were selected based on relevance, date of publication, and originality.

RESULTS

There are numerous citations looking at categorizing drug reactions, pathogenesis, biomarkers, and desensitization. Current understanding supports the use of a phenotype-endotype-biomarker model for categorizing immediate hypersensitivity reactions. Drug desensitization is a powerful therapeutic strategy that enables temporary induction of tolerance to medications that triggered immediate reactions.

CONCLUSION

Immediate hypersensitivity reactions are diverse in presentation and pathogenesis. Drug desensitization is an effective intervention with sufficient evidence to support its more widespread availability.

Severe hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds post-pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): first literature report

BACKGROUND

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) shows encouraging results for patients with unresectable peritoneal metastasis. Several reports demonstrated the safety of the procedure combined with systemic chemotherapy, with a low rate of complication. The aim of this study is to report severe hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds (SHRPC) during PIPAC procedures.

METHODS

All patients who underwent PIPAC for non-resectable PC in Lyon Sud University hospital were included in a prospective institutional database. All patients who presented a SHRPC after PIPAC were included in our analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-two patients underwent 383 PIPAC procedures between December 2015 and December 2017. oxaliplatin's and cisplatin-doxorubicin's protocols were used in 71 and 312 PIPAC, respectively. Four patients (3%) developed SHRPC; two patients (2.8%) after oxaliplatin and two patients (0.6%) after cisplatin-doxorubicin protocols. SHRPC occurred during the 6th PIPAC with cisplatin-doxorubicin protocol and during 2nd and 3rd PIPAC of the oxaliplatin protocol. Three events appeared within 15 min and one event occurred 50 min following nebulization. All the SHRPC have been managed successfully without any complication.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report of SHRPC after PIPAC. The physician must constantly keep this rare but life-threatening complication in mind, especially after repeated PIPAC administration or previous platinum-based systemic chemotherapy.

Circulating immune biomarkers as predictors of the response to pembrolizumab and weekly low dose carboplatin and paclitaxel in NSCLC and poor PS: An interim analysis

The combination of standard-dose chemotherapy and immunotherapy has been shown to be beneficial for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with good performance status (PS). However, treatment options for patients with poor PS are limited. In the present study, the feasibility and immunological effects of low-dose chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel combined with immunotherapy with pembrolizumab were examined in patients with metastatic NSCLC and a poor PS. Patients with advanced NSCLC and a PS of 2 were randomized to single-agent pembrolizumab at 200 mg every 3 weeks or pembrolizumab combined with weekly carboplatin area under the curve 1 and paclitaxel 25 mg/m². Blood for circulating immune cell phenotyping, soluble program death ligand 1 (sPD-L1) and immune-modulatory microRNAs (miRNAs) was collected prior to treatment and at weeks 4 and 7. Ten patients were randomized to the combination arm and 10 to the single-agent arm. Therapy was well tolerated. Four patients discontinued carboplatin due to hypersensitivity reactions but continued pembrolizumab and paclitaxel treatments. Increases in activated CD4⁺ T cells and in immune-regulatory miRNA, and decreases in myeloid derived suppressor cells were observed in the blood of patients in the combination arm and not in the single-agent arm. Changes in circulating regulatory T cells and sPD-L1 were not observed. Seven patients in the combination arm manifested a partial response compared with only two in the single-agent arm. Weekly low-dose chemotherapy carboplatin and paclitaxel was well tolerated and immunologically active when combined with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC and a PS of 2. This combination merits further study in this patient population.

Retrospective evaluation of a rechallenge protocol in patients experiencing hypersensitivity reactions with prior chemotherapy in a tertiary hospital

When encountering a hypersensitivity reaction to chemotherapy, a dilemma arises whether to continue the current regimen. In our institution, a standardized protocol has been developed. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of our rechallenge protocol in rechallenging patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions of grades 1 to 2 to paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin. The protocol consisted of intensification of premedication and lengthening of infusion time. A retrospective review of electronic medical records was conducted. Patients who attempted rechallenge with paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin under the protocol during the time period from August 2014 to December 2015 were included. Forty-six rechallenge cases were included (12 paclitaxel, 15 docetaxel, 5 carboplatin and 15 oxaliplatin cases). The first rechallenge cycle was completed successfully in 43/46 patients (93.5%) and 42/46 patients (91.3%) were hypersensitivity reaction-free throughout the treatment course under the rechallenge protocol. A total of 133/137 cycles (97.1%) were completed successfully under the protocol. Among patients who continued chemotherapy until disease progression or treatment completion, a median of three additional cycles (range: 1 to 9 cycles) were administered under the protocol. The four cases of recurrent hypersensitivity reactions responded well to infusion interruption and symptomatic treatment and all four patients were discharged uneventfully. Further rechallenge was not performed. Our study demonstrated that a combined strategy of intensification of premedication and lengthening of infusion duration is effective and probably safe in rechallenging patients with previous grades 1 to 2 hypersensitivity reaction to paclitaxel, docetaxel, carboplatin and oxaliplatin.

A Randomized Trial of Prophylactic Extended Carboplatin Infusion to Reduce Hypersensitivity Reactions in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Hypersensitivity with repeated exposure to platinum agents is common and can preclude continued treatment, even in patients with disease that remains platinum sensitive. We sought to compare the effects of prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion versus standard infusion on the rate of carboplatin hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in women with recurrent ovarian cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, randomized, nonblinded trial comparing a graded, 3-hour extended infusion of carboplatin with a standard 30-minute infusion in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were enrolled from January 2011 to April 2015. The study was designed to detect a decrease in the HSR rate from 20% (standard infusion) to 5% (extended infusion) assuming a type 1 error of 10% and power of 80% using a 1-sided test.

RESULTS

Of 146 enrolled patients, 114 were evaluable. Fifteen (13%) had an HSR-11% (6/56) in the extended-infusion and 16% (9/58) in the standard-infusion groups (P = 0.582). Planned treatment completion was achieved in 50 (89%) of 56 patients and 49 (84%) of 58 patients, respectively. Of 25 patients who received single-agent carboplatin, 8 (32%) had an HSR (53% of all patients who had an HSR [8/15]). Of 23 patients who received carboplatin with gemcitabine, 4 (17%) had an HSR (27% of all patients who had an HSR [4/15]). Of 8 patients who received carboplatin with paclitaxel, 3 (38%) had an HSR (20% of all patients who had an HSR [3/15]). There were no HSRs with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, the most commonly given concurrent chemotherapy (46% of all patients).

CONCLUSIONS

A prophylactic, extended carboplatin infusion was not associated with a decreased HSR rate. The overall low HSR rate suggests that premedication may help reduce HSRs.

Anaphylaxis in the 21st century: phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers

Anaphylaxis is the most serious of all allergic reactions and can be fatal. The diagnosis is frequently delayed, and misdiagnosis often occurs with asthma or urticaria. Biomarkers such as tryptase are not routinely checked, and appropriate treatment with epinephrine is not administered in a majority of cases, increasing the risk of poor outcomes. The objective of this review is to provide a better understanding of the pathophysiology of anaphylaxis with a description of phenotypes, endotypes, and biomarkers available in both the clinical and research settings. Expanding knowledge with regard to the presentation, causes, and triggers for anaphylaxis among health care providers will improve its diagnosis and management, increase patient safety, and decrease morbidity and mortality.

Chemotherapy Acute Infusion Reactions: A Qualitative Report of the Perspectives of Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVE

A growing number of cancer antineoplastic agents can cause life-threatening acute infusion reactions. Because previous studies have not studied these reactions from the perspective of patients, this study was undertaken with that objective in mind.

METHODS

Patients who had an acute infusion reaction were interviewed based on the Leventhal model. Once saturation of content was achieved, interviews were transcribed and analyzed with qualitative methodology.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were enrolled. Most were women (n = 15); the median age was 58 years, and paclitaxel was the most common inciting agent. Three themes emerged. First, these reactions are frightening; patients made remarks such as "I was just thinking oh my God, I am dying." Second, prior education about these reactions seemed to mitigate this fear, "Basically everything the nurses told me potentially could happen, like happened. So, I was prepared." Third, when health-care providers were prompt and attentive during the reaction, patients described less fear with future chemotherapy, "So no, I'm really not fearful about going in tomorrow because I know they'll be there and they'll be watching me."

CONCLUSION

These reactions evoke fear which can be mitigated with education prior to and with prompt responsiveness during the acute infusion reaction.

Cisplatin-induced sudden cardiac death with hemodynamic collapse: a severe adverse drug reaction: Case report

RATIONALE

Cisplatin is responsible for a significant percentage of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in oncology setting. A great proportion of cisplatin-induced severe adverse events are difficult to foresee, and giving premedication does not always prevent the occurrence of such events.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 53-year-old woman with progressive T4 N0 M0 stage IV pleural mesothelioma experienced cardiac arrest with hemodynamic collapse after cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy administration.

DIAGNOSES

Progressive pleural T4 N0 M0 stage IV mesothelioma of the right lung, primary arterial hypertension, and cardiac arrest with hemodynamic collapse.

INTERVENTIONS

The cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy was administered intravenously for progressive pleural T4 N0 M0 stage IV mesothelioma of the right lung. During infusion of cisplatin the patient developed cardiac arrest, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was initiated.

OUTCOMES

The patient was treated in intensive care unit and recovered successfully. Further chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed was withheld due to this severe adverse reaction to cisplatin.

LESSONS

Cisplatin therapy should be thoroughly monitored including electrolyte, especially magnesium levels. Absence of previous ADRs to cisplatin and premedication should not give false sense of security.

Drug Hypersensitivity and Anaphylaxis in Cancer and Chronic Inflammatory Diseases: The Role of Desensitizations

Drug allergy is a rising problem in the twenty-first century which affects all populations and races, children, and adults, and for which the recognition, diagnosis, management, and treatment is still not well standardized. Classical and new chemotherapy drugs, monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), and small molecules to treat cancer and chronic inflammatory diseases are aimed at improving quality of life and life expectancy of patients, but an increasing number of reactions including anaphylaxis precludes their use in targeted populations. Women are more affected by drug allergy and up to 27% of women with ovarian and breast cancer develop carboplatin allergy after multiple cycles of treatment. Carriers of BRCA genes develop drug allergy after fewer exposures and can present with severe reactions, including anaphylaxis. Atopic patients are at increased risk for chemotherapy and MoAbs drug allergy and the current patterns of treatment with recurrent and intermittent drug exposures may favor the development of drug allergies. To overcome drug allergy, desensitization has been developed, a novel approach which provides a unique opportunity to protect against anaphylaxis and to improve clinical outcomes. There is evidence that inhibitory mechanisms blocking IgE/antigen mast cell activation are active during desensitization, enhancing safety. Whether desensitization modulates drug allergic and anaphylactic responses facilitating tolerance is currently being investigated. This review provides insight into the current knowledge of drug allergy and anaphylaxis to cancer and chronic inflammatory diseases drugs, the mechanisms of drug desensitization and its applications to personalized medicine.

Diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis in precision medicine

Anaphylaxis is the most severe and frightening of the allergic reactions, placing patients at high risk and demanding prompt recognition and immediate management by health care providers. Yet because its symptoms imitate those of other diseases, such as asthma and urticaria, current data suggest that its diagnosis is often missed, with underuse of tryptase measurement; its treatment is delayed, with little use of epinephrine; and its underlying cause or causes are poorly investigated. Deaths from anaphylaxis are difficult to investigate because of miscoding. Surprisingly, patients treated with new and powerful chemotherapy agents and humanized mAbs present with nonclassical symptoms of anaphylaxis, and patients may present with unrecognized clonal mast cell disorders with KIT mutations may present as Hymenoptera-induced or idiopathic anaphylaxis. The goal of this review is to recognize the presentations of anaphylaxis with the description of its current phenotypes, to provide new insight and understanding of its mechanisms and causes through its endotypes, and to address its biomarkers for broad clinical use. Ultimately, the aim is to empower allergists and heath care providers with new tools that can help alleviate patients' symptoms, preventing and protecting them against anaphylaxis.

Drug-Induced Anaphylaxis

Drugs are among the main triggers of anaphylaxis, but identification of the culprit drug is frequently difficult. To confirm diagnosis of the causative agent, medical records and clinical history are fundamental. There are a few in vitro tests available in clinical practice, such as serum-specific IgE and basophil activation test. Skin tests are often useful for the diagnosis, although drug challenge is indicated in patients with inconclusive clinical history or to provide safe alternatives. Treatment of anaphylaxis is standard and intramuscular epinephrine is the main agent to prevent morbidity and mortality. Rapid desensitization may be indicated in selected cases.