Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents and Taxanes

Evaluating the efficacy of a premedication regimen including high-dose cetirizine in reduction of hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) are a known adverse effect of paclitaxel, occurring in approximately 10% of patients, typically during the first or second infusion of the medication. Corticosteroids, histamine-1 and histamine-2 receptor antagonists are given prior to paclitaxel infusions to reduce the incidence of HSR. There are limited data that suggest administration of cetirizine given prior to a platinum infusion as secondary prophylaxis may reduce HSR rates.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a novel paclitaxel hypersensitivity prevention protocol including high-dose cetirizine administered 12 and 6 h prior to paclitaxel infusion on the rate of HSR compared to a historical control. The primary objective was the rate of HSR of any grade after the first cycle of paclitaxel. Secondary outcomes included grade of infusion reaction and incidence of severe HSR.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included for analysis in the cetirizine group and 124 in the control group. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 37 (16.2%) patients in the overall population, and no statistical difference was observed between groups. (13.46% vs 18.55%; p = 0.23). Numerically more grade 3-4 HSRs occurred in the control group than the treatment group (30.77% vs 69.23; p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of cetirizine to paclitaxel infusions resulted in numerically lower rates of HSR and a reduction in severity of grade 3-4 HSRs. Future studies with more robust compliance data and a larger patient population would be needed to appropriately assess the efficacy of our novel treatment regimen.

Design, synthesis, molecular modeling, in vitro and in vivo biological evaluation of potent anthranilamide derivatives as dual P-glycoprotein and CYP3A4 inhibitors

Paclitaxel (PTX) is considered the blockbuster chemotherapy treatment for cancer. Paclitaxel's (PTX) oral administration has proven to be extremely difficult, mostly because of its susceptibility to intestinal P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome P450 (CYP3A4). The concurrent local inhibition of intestinal P-gp and CYP3A4 is a promising approach to improve the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel while avoiding potential unfavorable side effects of their systemic inhibition. Herein, we report the rational design and evaluation of novel dual potent inhibitors of P-gp and CYP3A4 using an anthranilamide derivative tariquidar as a starting point for their structural optimizations. Compound 14f, bearing N-imidazolylbenzyl side chain, was found to have potent and selective P-gp (EC50 = 28 nM) and CYP3A4 (IC50 = 223 nM) inhibitory activities with low absorption potential (Papp (A-to-B) <0.06). In vivo, inhibitor 14f improved the oral absorption of paclitaxel by 6 times in mice and by 30 times in rats as compared to vehicle, while 14f itself remained poorly absorbed. Compound 14f, possessing dual P-gp and CYP3A4 inhibitory activities, offered additional enhancement in paclitaxel oral absorption compared to tariquidar in mice. Evaluating the CYP effect of 14f on oral absorption of paclitaxel requires considering the variations in CYP expression between animal species. This study provides further medicinal chemistry advice on strategies for resolving concerns with the oral administration of chemotherapeutic agents.

Prevention of allergic reactions during oxaliplatin desensitization through inhibition of Bruton tyrosine kinase

BACKGROUND

Acute infusion reactions to oxaliplatin, a chemotherapeutic used to treat gastrointestinal cancers, are observed in about 20% of patients. Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) protocols often allow the continuation of oxaliplatin in patients with no alternative options. Breakthrough symptoms, including anaphylaxis, can still occur during RDD.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate whether pretreatment with acalabrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, can prevent anaphylaxis during RDD in a patient sensitized to oxaliplatin.

METHODS

A 52-year-old male with locally advanced gastric carcinoma developed anaphylaxis during his fifth cycle of oxaliplatin. As he required 6 additional cycles to complete his curative-intent treatment regimen, he underwent RDD to oxaliplatin but still developed severe acute reactions. The risks and benefits of adding acalabrutinib before and during RDD were reviewed, and the patient elected to proceed.

RESULTS

With acalabrutinib taken before and during the RDD, the patient was able to tolerate oxaliplatin RDD without complication. Consistent with its mechanism of action, acalabrutinib completely blocked the patient's positive skin prick response to oxaliplatin. Acalabrutinib did not alter the percentage of circulating basophils (1.24% vs 0.98%) before the RDD but did protect against basopenia (0.74% vs 0.09%) after the RDD. Acalabrutinib was associated with a drastic reduction in the ability of basophils to upregulate CD63 in vitro following incubation with oxaliplatin (0.11% vs 2.38%) or polyclonal anti-human IgE antibody (0.08% vs 44.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Five doses of acalabrutinib, 100 mg, orally twice daily starting during the evening 2 days before and continuing through RDD allowed a sensitized patient to receive oxaliplatin successfully and safely.

Eribulin in breast cancer: Current insights and therapeutic perspectives

Eribulin is a non-taxane synthetic analogue approved in many countries as third-line treatment for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. In addition to its mitotic property, eribulin has non-mitotic properties including but not limited to, its ability to induce phenotypic reversal of epithelial to mesenchymal transition, vascular remodelling, reduction in immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment. Since approval, there has been a surge in studies investigating the application of eribulin as an earlier-line treatment and also in combination with other agents such as immunotherapy and targeted therapy across all breast cancer sub-types, including hormone receptor positive, HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, many demonstrating promising activity. This review will focus on the application of eribulin in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer across all subtypes including its role as an earlier-line agent, its toxicity profile, and potential future directions.

First-Line Antituberculosis Drug Challenge Reactions in Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome in an HIV Endemic Setting

BACKGROUND

In high HIV prevalence settings, first-line antituberculosis drug (FLTD)-associated drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) poses therapeutic challenges. A sequential and additive drug challenge (SADC) of FLTDs best identifies offending drug(s), avoids unnecessary exclusions, and optimizes reinitiation of nonoffending drugs. However, SADC-associated reaction complexities limit its utility.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the characteristics of patients with FLTD-associated DRESS, their treatment-limiting SADC reactions, and related outcomes.

METHODS

Patients hospitalized with FLTD-associated DRESS from 2013 to 2023 in a South African tertiary hospital and enrolled (retrospectively or prospectively) in an existing registry were eligible.

RESULTS

SADC was undertaken in 41 patients. Overall, 47 classifiable reactions occurred. 34/47 (72%) reactions in 29/41 (71%) patients were treatment-limiting and 12 of 41(29%) patients reinitiated FLTDs uneventfully. Fifteen single and 8 multiple drug reactors were identified. Rifampicin in 13 of 23(57%) reactors was the most common individual offender. Ethambutol was most frequently involved in multiple drug reactors. The median (interquartile range) time to a detectable reaction was 24(12-120) hours, 6 of 34(18%) being immediate (<6 hours). Itch (65%), eosinophilia (56%), fever (41%), atypical lymphocytosis (41%), rash (38%), transaminitis (32%), and facial edema (18%) singly or in combination were the most common features. Three reactions, 1 epidermal necrolysis and 2 liver derangements, were Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 4 (life-threatening) events. No predictors of multiple drug reactivity were identified, but multiple reactors were hospitalized significantly longer, 125(100-134) days versus 60(45-80) days.

CONCLUSIONS

SADC optimizes FLTD reinitiation. However, timing, clinical presentation, and severity of SADC-associated reactions after FLTD-associated DRESS are markedly heterogeneous. Additionally, multiple drug reactors are a complex group that require longer hospitalization. There are no routine biomarkers available to distinguish true multiple drug hypersensitivity from nonspecific flare-ups and to guide long-term drug avoidance strategies.

Rates of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions using a modified Markman's infusion protocol as primary prophylaxis

PURPOSE

Markman's desensitisation protocol allows successful retreatment of patients who have had significant paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions. We aimed to reduce the risk and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions by introducing this protocol as primary prophylaxis.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients with a gynaecological malignancy receiving paclitaxel before (December 2018 to September 2019) and after (October 2019 to July 2020) the implementation of a modified Markman's desensitisation protocol. The pre-implementation group received paclitaxel over a gradually up-titrated rate from 60 to 180 ml/h. The post-implementation group received paclitaxel via 3 fixed-dose infusion bags in the first 2 cycles. Rates and severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 426 paclitaxel infusions were administered to 78 patients. The median age was 64 years (range 34-81), and the most common diagnosis was ovarian, fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancer (67%, n = 52/78). Paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction rates were similar in the pre-implementation (8%, n = 16/195) and post-implementation groups (9%, n = 20/231; p = 0.87). Most paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 30 min (pre- vs. post-implementation, 88% [n = 14/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.45) and were grade 2 in severity (pre- vs. post-implementation, 81% [n = 13/16] vs. 75% [n = 15/20]; p = 0.37). There was one grade 3 paclitaxel hypersensitivity reaction in the pre-implementation group. All patients were successfully rechallenged in the post-implementation group compared to 81% (n = 13/16) in the pre-implementation group (p = 0.43).

CONCLUSION

The modified Markman's desensitisation protocol as primary prophylaxis did not reduce the rate or severity of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions, although all patients could be successfully rechallenged.

Effectiveness of Carboplatin-Prescreening Intradermal Skin Tests to Reduce Unanticipated Immediate Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Carboplatin administration poses a risk of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (IHRs) that tend to increase with repeated administration and are mostly IgE-mediated.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the usefulness of carboplatin-prescreening intradermal skin tests (IDTs).

METHODS

Carboplatin-prescreening IDTs were routinely conducted in patients with a history of receiving six or more carboplatin cycles beginning in January 2021. The primary objective was to assess disparities in the incidence of unanticipated IHRs to carboplatin administration. We compared patients in the intervention group (from 2021 to 2022) and those who did not undergo prescreening IDTs under the same conditions (preintervention group, from 2019 to 2020). Secondary objectives included evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of the prescreening IDT and the incidence of carboplatin IHR according to the number of infusion cycles.

RESULTS

The intervention group was composed of 67 patients who were administered 347 carboplatin cycles whereas the preintervention group included 96 patients who were administered 464 carboplatin cycles. The risk of unanticipated carboplatin IHRs decreased by 83.2% in the intervention group compared with results in the preintervention group (preintervention group, 3.45%, n = 16 vs intervention group, 0.58%, n = 2; P = .005). The prescreening IDT showed a sensitivity and specificity of 77.78% and 99.41%, respectively. The risk of newly developed IHRs based on the number of carboplatin cycles was less than 1% (cycles 1-5), 2.11% (cycle 6), 3.90% (cycles 7-12), 2.90% (cycles 13-18), and 0.74% (cycles 19 and greater), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating carboplatin-prescreening IDTs from the seventh cycle on significantly reduced the risk of unanticipated IHRs.

Rechallenges without desensitization following platinum-based chemotherapy reactions

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in non-desensitization protocols as a potential way to reintroduce chemotherapy following hypersensitivity reactions (HSR).

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the potential utility of non-desensitization reintroduction, particularly at institutions where allergy consultation may not be available.

METHODS

For 70 patients with platinum HSR who underwent rechallenge with standard (≤2 hours), extended (1-bag, 1-step, 4-6 hours), or titrated (4-to-5-bag and -step, 6-7.5 hours) infusions between 1/2014 and 7/2019, demographics and clinical characteristics were reviewed and initial and breakthrough reactions (BTR) were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0). Tolerance (no BTR) and completion (dose completed despite BTR) were compared using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Patients (mean [standard deviation] age 57 [13] years, initial HSR grade 2 [1]), were rechallenged with standard (n = 8), extended (n = 23), or titrated (n = 22) infusions after oxaliplatin HSR; and standard (n = 5) or titrated (n = 12) after carboplatin HSR. Tolerance and completion were higher for extended versus (vs) standard (tolerance-87%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-96%-vs-38%, p < 0.005) and titrated versus standard (tolerance-76%-vs-8%, p < 0.005; completion-79%-vs-38%, p < 0.05) infusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended and titrated infusions may increase reintroduction safety compared to standard infusions. Further investigation into extended infusions may provide a safe alternative to standard infusions in patients who may not have access to desensitization at their institution.

Management of infusion-related reactions in cancer therapy: strategies and challenges

Several anticancer therapies have the potential to cause infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the form of adverse events that typically occur within minutes to hours after drug infusion. IRRs can range in severity from mild to severe anaphylaxis-like reactions. Careful monitoring at infusion initiation, prompt recognition, and appropriate clinical assessment of the IRR and its severity, followed by immediate management, are required to ensure patient safety and optimal outcomes. Lack of standardization in the prevention, management, and reporting of IRRs across cancer-treating institutions represents not only a quality and safety gap but also a disparity in cancer care. The present article, supported by recently published data, was developed to standardize these procedures across institutions and provide a useful tool for health care providers in clinical practice to recognize early signs and symptoms of an IRR and promptly and appropriately manage the event.

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity

Immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (IDHRs) are a burden for patients and the health systems. This problem increases when taking into account that only a small proportion of patients initially labelled as allergic are finally confirmed after an allergological workup. The diverse nature of drugs involved will imply different interactions with the immunological system. Therefore, IDHRs can be produced by a wide array of mechanisms mediated by the drug interaction with specific antibodies or directly on effector target cells. These heterogeneous mechanisms imply an enhanced complexity for an accurate diagnosis and the identification of the phenotype and endotype at early stages of the reaction is of vital importance. Currently, several endophenotypic categories (type I IgE/non-IgE, cytokine release, Mast-related G-protein coupled receptor X2 (MRGPRX2) or Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition and their associated biomarkers have been proposed. A precise knowledge of endotypes will permit to discriminate patients within the same phenotype, which is crucial in order to personalise diagnosis, future treatment and prevention to improve the patient's quality of life.

Changing patterns in the epidemiology of drug allergy

Drug allergy (DA) remains a complex and unaddressed problem worldwide that often deprives patients of optimal medication choices and places them at risk for life-threatening reactions. Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are common and due to the lack of standardized definitions and biomarkers. The true burden of DA is unknown, and recent efforts in data gathering through electronic medical records are starting to provide emerging patterns around the world. Ten percent of the general population engaged in health care claim to have a DA, and the most common label is penicillin allergy. Up to 20% of emergency room visits for anaphylaxis are due to DA and 15%-20% of hospitalized patients report DA. It is estimated that DA will increase based on the availability and use of new and targeted antibiotics, vaccines, chemotherapies, biologicals, and small molecules, which are aimed at improving patient's options and quality of life. Global and regional variations in the prevalence of diseases such as human immunodeficiency virus and mycobacterial diseases, and the drugs used to treat these infections have an impact on DA. The aim of this review is to provide an update on the global impact of DA by presenting emerging data on drug epidemiology in adult and pediatric populations.

EAACI/ENDA position paper on drug provocation testing

In drug hypersensitivity, drug provocation testing (DPT), also called drug challenge, is the gold standard for investigation. In recent years, risk stratification has become an important tool for adjusting the diagnostic strategy to the perceived risk, whilst still maintaining a high level of safety for the patient. Skin tests are recommended before DPT but may be omitted in low-risk patients. The task force suggests a strict definition of such low-risk patients in children and adults. Based on experience and evidence from studies of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics, an algorithm on how to adjust DPT to the risk, and when to omit skin tests before DPT, is presented. For other antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and other drugs, skin tests are poorly validated and DPT is frequently necessary. We recommend performing DPT with chemotherapeutics and biologicals to avoid unnecessary desensitization procedures and DPT with skin tests negative contrast media. We suggest DPT with anesthetics only in highly specialized centers. Specifics of DPT to proton pump inhibitors, anticonvulsants and corticosteroids are discussed. This position paper provides general recommendations and guidance on optimizing use of DPT, whilst balancing benefits with patient safety and optimizing the use of the limited available resources.

Platinum desensitization therapy and its impact on the prognosis of ovary high-grade serous adenocarcinoma: a real world-data

Background

To examine the value of five-step platinum desensitization therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on the high-grade serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary (HGSAO) patients who developed a platinum allergy during treatment and received desensitization therapy between January, 2016 and December, 2020. The logistic-regression was adopted to analyze the relationship between platinum desensitization therapy and prognosis in HGSAO patients.

Results

92 HGSAO patients were included in the study. Among these, 35 patients (38.0%) experienced mild allergic reactions, 51 (55.4%) experienced moderate allergic reactions, and 6 (6.5%) experienced severe allergic reactions. The desensitization therapy was successful in 86 patients (93.5%). Six patients had desensitization failure, of which five experienced severe allergic reactions during desensitization. The logistic-regression analysis revealed no significant correlation between platinum desensitization therapy and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) of patients (P < 0.05). However, the subgroup analysis demonstrated that the success or failure of platinum desensitization therapy significantly impacted the OS of patients who were platinum-sensitive recurrence. The patients who had successful desensitization therapy had a superior OS.

Conclusion

Five-step platinum desensitization therapy has potential application value in patients who were platinum-sensitive recurrence after first-line treatment but may bear the risk of severe allergic reactions.

Impact of institutional interventions on the rate of paclitaxel hypersensitivity reactions

PURPOSE

Paclitaxel is associated with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Intravenous premedication regimens have been devised to decrease the incidence and severity of HSRs. At our institution oral histamine 1 receptor antagonists (H1RA) and histamine 2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) were adopted as standard. Standardizations were implemented for consistent premedication use in all disease states. The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the incidence and severity of HSRs before and after standardization.

METHODS

Patients who received paclitaxel from 20 April 2018 to 8 December 2020 having an HSR were included in analysis. An infusion was flagged for review if a rescue medication was administered after the start of the paclitaxel infusion. The incidences of all HSR prior to and post-standardization were compared. A subgroup analysis of patients receiving paclitaxel for the first and second time was performed.

RESULTS

There were 3499infusions in the pre-standardization group and 1159infusions in the post-standardization group. After review, 100 HSRs pre-standardization and 38 HSRs post-standardization were confirmed reactions. The rate of overall HSRs was 2.9% in the pre-standardization group and 3.3% in the post-standardization group (p = 0.48). HSRs, during the first and second doses of paclitaxel, occurred in 10.2% of the pre-standardization and 8.5% of the post-standardization group (p = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective interventional study demonstrated that same-day intravenous dexamethasone, oral H1RA, and oral H2RA are safe premedication regimens for paclitaxel. No change in the severity of reactions was seen. Overall, better adherence to premedication administration was seen post-standardization.

Desensitization in patients with hypersensitivity to platinum and taxane in gynecological cancers

BACKGROUND

Exposure to paclitaxel and carboplatin has the risk of developing hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), which could necessitate using less effective treatments to avoid anaphylaxis. Desensitization to platinum and taxane HSRs can be used to complete chemotherapy according to the standard regimen; therefore, this study investigated rates and benefits of successful desensitization in patients with gynecologic cancers (GC).

METHODS

We collected data from 241 patients with GC who had at least one cycle of platinum or taxane chemotherapy. The rate of HSRs and successful desensitization were evaluated, and an outcome analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

The rate of HSRs to platinum and taxane was 6.39% and 13.07%, respectively. We observed a 100% success rate of desensitization in our cohort. Patients with HSR were significantly younger (57.1 vs. 64.9 years, p = 0.030) in the taxane cohort. Importantly, the overall survival (OS) of patients with platinum and taxane HSRs who underwent desensitization was comparable to that of patients with no HSRs (platinum vs. controls; median OS 60.36 vs. 60.39 months, p = 0.31; taxane vs. controls; OS 80.29 vs. 60.00 months, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Thus, we show that desensitization for platinum and taxane HSRs is safe and effective, resulting in an outcome that is well comparable to patients without HSR. Based on these observations, desensitization procedures might be considered as standard of care before switching to less effective treatment for patients with GC.

Hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Although rare, systemic hypersensitivity reactions to nedaplatin chemotherapy arise rapidly and can be life-threatening. The causes are unclear, and multiple potential mechanisms exist. Here, we report a case of systemic hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin and review the literature to establish a recommended protocol.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 62-year-old man was being treated for squamous lung cancer with multiple metastases. On the first day of chemotherapy, 5 minutes after nedaplatin infusion, he developed panic, shortness of breath, and dyspnea with rapid heart rate, reduced oxygen saturation, and elevated blood pressure.

DIAGNOSES

The symptoms indicated that the patient had developed a severe hypersensitivity reaction to nedaplatin, which could be life-threatening without immediate intervention.

INTERVENTION

Nedaplatin was discontinued, and he was treated with oxygen, ECG monitoring, finger pulse oximeter monitoring, 10 mg dexamethasone sodium phosphate injected intravenously, 20 mg diphenhydramine hydrochloride injected intramuscularly, and 40 mg methylprednisolone sodium succinate injected intravenously.

OUTCOME

His allergic symptoms resolved, and once his vital signs stabilized, he was given 5 mg oral desloratadine once daily and 10 mg oral ebastine once daily to alleviate the effects of the allergic reaction. Once his vital signs remained stable without any special supportive treatment, he was discharged from the hospital. His chemotherapy regimen was discontinued, with no plan for a follow-up treatment due to the possibility of cross-allergic reactions between platinum-based drugs.

LESSONS

Clinical use of nedaplatin should be monitored and managed intensively for prevention and treatment of hypersensitivity reactions. Care should be taken to control the titration rate during infusion while closely monitoring vital signs. Clinical staff should be prepared to treat allergic symptoms as soon as they appear. The acute phase should involve immediate discontinuation of the drug; intravenous saline infusion for volume expansion; rapid assessment of circulation, airway, respiration, state of consciousness, and skin condition; and administration of oxygen, antihistamines, and epinephrine as appropriate for anaphylaxis. More randomized clinical trials are needed to elucidate appropriate preventative and management strategies to improve patient safety and support their successful completion of clinical treatment programs.

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.

Polysorbate 80 as a possible allergenic component in cross-allergy to docetaxel and fosaprepitant: A literature review

OBJECTIVE

Patients had allergies to both fosaprepitant and docetaxel with similar signs and symptoms. To explore the possible causes of allergy and whether there is cross-allergy between fosaprepitant and docetaxel, we conducted a literature review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search of the following databases was performed: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Taylor & Francis. The final search was on 12 November 2022. Two investigators independently selected eligible studies and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by a third researcher.

RESULTS

The main cause of fosaprepitant and docetaxel allergy is polysorbate 80. Fosaprepitant and docetaxel have similar allergic symptoms, mainly facial flushing (19.0%, 18.5%); erythema/dermatitis (17.2%, 1.9%); fluid retention (17.2%, 22.2%); and dyspnea, bronchospasm, shortness of breath and coughing (15.5%, 16.7%). Hypotension (1.7%, 7.4%) and decreased oxygen saturation (1.7%, 1.9%) are rare. The treatments for both allergies are similar: stop injection, oxygen, glucocorticoid, antihistamines and symptomatic treatments.

CONCLUSION

Polysorbate 80 is the same allergenic component of docetaxel and fosaprepitant. The symptoms and treatments caused by the two drugs are similar. Most allergic reactions are not serious. Medications containing the same allergy ingredient need to be used with caution for patients with severe allergies to polysorbate 80.

The Rate of Infusion Represents an Important Aspect of Administering Anticancer Agents

Background

Infusion rate is one of the essential elements that should be included in all intravenous orders. Patients may experience adverse consequences or risks associated with inappropriate infusion. Meanwhile, there is growing pressure on the chemotherapy unit to deliver treatment quickly, efficiently, and safely, and thus it is very necessary to improve the chemotherapy process and service to cancer patients. Clinicians should consider how to further standardize infusion therapy, and innovate new infusion strategies to increase efficacy, reduce toxicity, improve patient satisfaction and save health resource costs. Sporadic studies have evaluated the effects of infusion rates of anticancer agents on clinical outcomes, economic benefits, and administration efficiency. However, an update review has not been available.

Methods

Relevant literature was identified by search of PubMed until September 2023.

Results

Infusion rates may have significant effect on the efficacy of anticancer agents (e.g., methotrexate, fluorouracil, and arsenic trioxide). Slow infusion is safer for platinum compounds, doxorubicin and carmustine, whereas fast infusion is safer than slow infusion of gemcitabine. Optimal flow rates of paclitaxel and fluorouracil are based on the balance between multiple risks of toxicity. Optimal infusion rate may bring economic benefits. If efficacy and safety are not compromised, shortened infusion may result in higher patient satisfaction, improved institutional efficiency and more nursing time available for other activities (e.g., biosimilar products, endostar). Other concerns about infusion rate include clinical indications (eg, paclitaxel and rituximab, methotrexate), severity and type of hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., platinum compounds), formulation features (e.g., paclitaxel, doxorubicin), and genetic polymorphism (e.g., gemcitabine, methotrexate).

Conclusion

The latest knowledge of infusion rate concerns will enhance the appropriateness and accuracy in intravenous administration. Interdisciplinary teams should collaborate and implement relevant risk management and healthcare policy. It is worthwhile to conduct comparative studies of intravenous therapy with different infusion speeds.

Rapid drug desensitization to taxanes: a descriptive study from Turkey

AIM

To present the characteristics of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among taxane recipients with non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), and to describe the results of rapid drug desensitization (RDD).

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study included 45 patients who were treated with taxane for NSCLC and were found to be hypersensitive to taxane. All patients were administered the standard 3-bag, 12-step RDD protocol following the development of DHR. RDD success was evaluated separately for each cycle, and successful RDD was defined as the completion of the cycle with application of 12 steps of the desensitization protocol and the absence of early and/or late reactions afterwards.

RESULTS

Among 45 patients hypersensitive to taxane 43 (95.6%) successfully received taxane cycles with desensitization. Failed RDD occurred in only 2 (4.4%) patients. The total number of desensitization cycles was 183, of which 181 (98.9%) were successful. The mean age of patients with successful desensitization was 59.42 ± 10.48 years and 37 (86.0%) of them were male.

CONCLUSION

RDD is a reliable procedure that enables effective administration and completion of first-line taxane treatments in taxane-sensitive patients.

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.

Immune Reactions in Major Types of Oncological Treatment

In recent years, there has been a noticeable development in oncological treatment, including chemotherapy and biological treatment. Despite their significant effectiveness, they are not free from side effects, such as allergic and dermatological reactions. These reactions can vary in severity and outcome, including potential death. Examples, among others, are type I-IV hypersensitivity reactions of various origins and skin reactions including rashes, itching and redness, but also severe cutaneous syndromes. Due to the therapy used, these may include Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome and acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. In some cases, it is necessary to interrupt therapy, which may result in a poorer outcome and shorten the patient's survival. This paper reviews various types of research documents published since 2016. It aims to systematize the latest knowledge and highlight the need for further research into ways to avoid adverse reactions.

Desensitization in children allergic to drugs: Indications, protocols, and limits

Any drug can potentially induce a hypersensitivity reaction. If after the allergological work-up the drug hypersensitivity reaction is confirmed, in most cases, the simple avoidance of the culprit drug and a suggestion of an unrelated alternative is enough. However, there are circumstances where the choice to stop the treatment affects the survival, the safety and/or the quality of life of the patient and the global outcome of the disease in question. When this occurs, drug desensitization can be the answer and should not be viewed as an extravagance, nor the pediatric age should be considered a contraindication. Drug desensitization in children can be safely and successfully performed, having a positive impact on the survival and overall prognosis. In general, the indications for DDS are the same in adults as in children. However, in this age group there are specificities that this paper aimed to describe, reviewing the mechanisms behind drug hypersensitivity and rapid drug desensitization, types of protocols, indications, and contraindications, as well as several technical aspects that are specific to the pediatric age.

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.

Distinct Shortness of Breath Profiles in Oncology Outpatients Undergoing Chemotherapy

CONTEXT

Shortness of breath is a distressing symptom that occurs in 10% to 70% of oncology patients. Despite this broad range in its occurrence, little is known about inter-individual variability in shortness of breath and associated risk factors among patients receiving chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

Identify subgroups of patients with distinct shortness of breath profiles; evaluate for differences among these subgroups in demographic and clinical characteristics; evaluate for differences among symptom dimensions of shortness of breath, and evaluate for differences in quality of life outcomes.

METHODS

Outpatients (n=1338) completed questionnaires six times over two chemotherapy cycles. Occurrence of shortness of breath was assessed using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups of patients with distinct shortness of breath profiles.

RESULTS

Four distinct shortness of breath profiles were identified (None [70.5%], Decreasing [8.2%], Increasing [7.8%], High [13.5%]). Risk factors for membership in High class included: history of smoking, self-reported diagnosis of lung disease, having lung cancer, and receipt of a higher number of cancer treatments. Compared to the None class, High class reported poorer physical, psychological, and social functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost 14% of patients with heterogeneous types of cancer receiving chemotherapy had persistently high occurrence rates of shortness of breath for almost two months. In addition, compared to the Decreasing and Increasing classes, the High class' episodes of shortness of breath were more frequent and more severe. Clinicians need to assess all oncology patients for shortness of breath and provide targeted interventions.

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.

Platinum drugs-related safety profile: The latest five-year analysis from FDA adverse event reporting system data

Background

With the widespread application of platinum drugs in antitumor therapy, the incidence of platinum drug adverse events (ADEs) is always severe. This study aimed to explore the adverse event signals of Cisplatin, Carboplatin and Oxaliplatin, three widely used platinum-containing drugs, and to provide a reference for rational individualized clinical drug use.

Methods

The adverse event report data of the three platinum drugs from the first quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2021 were extracted from the FAERS database, and the data mining and risk factors for the relevant reports were carried out using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) method the proportional reporting ratio (PRR)and the comprehensive criteria (MHRA) method.

Results

A total of 1853 effective adverse event signals were obtained for the three platinum agents, including 558 effective signals for Cisplatin, 896 effective signals for Carboplatin, and 399 effective signals for Oxaliplatin. The signals involve 23 effective different system organs (SOCs). The adverse events of Cisplatin are mainly fixed on blood and lymphatic system diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, systemic diseases and various reactions at the administration site. The adverse events of Carboplatin are mainly focused on blood and lymphatic system diseases, respiratory system, thoracic and mediastinal diseases, while the adverse events of Oxaliplatin are mainly concentrated in respiratory system, thoracic and mediastinal diseases, various nervous system diseases, and gastrointestinal system diseases.

Conclusion

It was found that the main systems involved in common adverse events of platinum drugs are different, and the correlation strength of platinum drugs with the certain adverse events of each system is different.

Platin desensitizations in thoracic malignancies and risk factors for breakthrough reactions

Although platin desensitization is a safe and effective alternative for patients with hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), sometimes breakthrough reactions (BTRs) can be encountered. However, data about the risk factors for BTRs are limited. The aim of this study is to define the outcomes of desensitization, the characteristics of BTRs, and to identify the risk factors for BTRs with platins in thoracic malignancies. This is a retrospective report of patients with thoracic malignancies who underwent platin desensitization. Patients' demographics, initial HSR characteristics, skin test results, desensitization outcomes, and BTR characteristics were recorded. Thirty-three lung cancer and 14 malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients were included in the study. The culprit drug was cisplatin in 29 and was carboplatin in 18 patients. Skin test positivity was 43.5% with cisplatin, 50% with carboplatin, and it was found to be higher if the interval between the initial HSR and skin testing (ST) was ˃20 days (p = 0.027). One hundred and five desensitization courses were performed. Twenty-two patients had 33 BTRs. Skin test positivity was higher in the BTR-positive group (p = 0.025). BTRs (18.2%; n = 6) were more severe than initial HSR. In the case of epinephrine administration during initial HSR, epinephrine administration during the first BTR was found to be more (p = 0.036). The target dose was achieved in 92.4% of desensitization courses. The number of previous platin infusions ≥10 was found to be an independent risk factor for BTR development (p = 0.036 OR:17.641, 95% CI: 1.211-256.971). Identification of risk factors for BTR will guide appropriate management and desensitization approaches for platin HSRs.

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.

Cisplatin hypersensitivity can result in the discontinuation of chemoradiotherapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Desensitization protocol had little impact on the therapeutic performance of cisplatin‐combined chemoradiotherapy.

Premedication Protocols to Prevent Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy: a Literature Review

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy may prevent patients from receiving the most effective therapy. This review was undertaken to identify evidence-based preventive premedication strategies that reduce the likelihood of HSR in the first instance and improve the safety of subsequent infusions in patients who have demonstrated HSR to a certain class of chemotherapy. PubMed was searched until October 2021 using the key words: "hypersensitivity to chemotherapeutic drugs," "hypersensitivity to antineoplastic agents," "taxanes hypersensitivity," "platinum compound hypersensitivity," "premedication," "dexamethasone," "prednisone," "hydrocortisone," "antihistamine," "diphenhydramine," "cetirizine," "famotidine," "meperidine," "aspirin," "ibuprofen," and "montelukast." The search was restricted to articles published in English. A total of 73 abstracts were selected for inclusion in the review. Most premedication regimens have been derived empirically rather than determined through randomized trials. Based on the available evidence, we provide an update on likely HSR mechanisms and a practical guide for classifying systemic HSR. The evidence indicates that a combination of prevention strategies using newer antihistamines, H2 antagonists, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids and other interventions used judiciously reduces the occurrence and severity of HSR and improves safety.

Analysis of Breakthrough Reactions in 1,143 Desensitization Procedures in a Single Tertiary Hospital Using a One-Bag Desensitization Protocol

Background

Drug desensitization is helpful for patients who have experienced significant hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to antineoplastic agents. One-bag desensitization protocols, attracting attention in recent years, need to be validated on their safety and efficacy in a large number.

Methods

One-bag desensitization procedures conducted from 2018 to 2020 were analyzed; their outcomes and the risk factors for breakthrough reactions (BTRs) were assessed in desensitization procedures to major drug types (platins, taxanes, and monoclonal antibodies).

Results

A total of 1,143 procedures of one-bag desensitization were performed in 228 patients with 99% completion rate. BTRs occurred in 26% of the total desensitization procedures—34% in platins, 12% in taxanes, and 18% in mAbs. BTR occurrence rate decreased along the desensitization process with 80% of BTRs occurring within the 6th desensitization attempts. Severe BTR occurred more frequently with severe initial HSRs (1% in mild to moderate initial HSRs vs. 16% in severe). Severe initial HSR was also a significant risk factor for moderate to severe BTR in platins (odds ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06–2.29, p = 0.025). The use of steroid was also associated with lower occurrence of moderate to severe BTR (odds ratio 0.50, 95% CI 0.35–0.72, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Most patients with HSRs to antineoplastic agents can safely receive chemotherapy through a one-bag desensitization protocol. Further studies on each drug with larger sample size can help verify the risk factors of BTRs and evaluate the efficacy of steroid premedication in improving the safety of desensitization in high-risk patients.

Temporal Modulation of Drug Desensitization Procedures

Drug hypersensitivity reactions are an unavoidable clinical consequence of the presence of new therapeutic agents. These adverse reactions concern patients afflicted with infectious diseases (e.g., hypersensitivity to antibiotics), and with non-infectious chronic diseases, such as in cancers, diabetes or cystic fibrosis treatments, and may occur at the first drug administration or after repeated exposures. Here we revise recent key studies on the mechanisms underlying the desensitization protocols, and propose an additional temporal regulation layer that is based on the circadian control of the signaling pathway involved and on the modulation of the memory effects established by the desensitization procedures.

Rapid drug desensitization with platin-based chemotherapy: Analysis of risk factors for breakthrough reactions

Background

All platin-based chemotherapeutics can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). With rapid drug desensitization (RDD), few patients experience breakthrough reactions (BTR) during desensitization. However, data about risk factors for BTRs during RDD in patients with HSRs to platins are limited. We first aimed to describe characteristics of our platin-reactive population and to validate the Brigham and Women's Hospital's (BWH's) RDD protocol in our population along with their outcomes with RDD. Our second aim was to identify the risk factors for BTRs.

Method

This was a retrospective chart review (2013–2020) of patients with symptoms of immediate HSRs to platins. Initial HSRs were classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on their severity. Skin prick tests (SPT)/intradermal tests (IDT) were performed with implicated platins. A 12-step protocol was used during RDD.

Results

The study comprised 65 women and seven men (mean age 57.78 ± 8.73 years). Initial HSRs to carboplatin, cisplatin, and oxaliplatin occurred in 38, 13, and 21 patients, respectively. All patients reacted at the fifth (median) recurrent infusions (min:1, max:20). The median values for carboplatin, cisplatin, and oxaliplatin were 6 (1–20), 3 (1–15), and 3 (1–11), respectively. Most initial HSRs were grade 2 (n = 40, 55.6%) and 3 (n = 27, 37.5%); only 6.9% (n = 5) were grade 1. Patients with grade 1, 2, and 3 initial HSRs had positive platin skin test results at rates of 80%, 74%, and 88%, respectively.

A total of 232 RDDs were performed in 72 patients and 98.7% of these desensitizations were completed. BTRs occurred in 56 (24.1%) (grade 1 n = 14, 25%; grade 2 n = 32, 57%; grade 3 n = 10, 18%) of these desensitizations. Breakthrough reactions were more severe in patients with positive SPTs or 1:100 or 1:10 dilutions of IDT (p = 0.014). BTR was not observed during RDD in any of the patients with positive 1:1 dilutions of IDT. Positivity on prick or 1:100 or 1:10 IDT increased the risk of BTR 5.058 times. There was no significant association between the risk of BTRs and age, drug cycle, sex, comorbidities, or atopy.

Conclusion

In our experience, 98.7% of 232 RDDs to platins were completed successfully, showing that RDD was safe and effective. Drug skin test positivity is a potential marker for identifying high-risk patients who will have BTRs during RDDs to platins.

Use of Skin Testing Screening and Desensitization Before the First Exposure of Rituximab

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and severity of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in the first exposure to rituximab with the adoption of skin testing screening and desensitization and investigate the value of skin testing as a predictive tool for immediate HSR to rituximab.

Methods

This was a prospective intervention study. Patients with hematological malignancies who required rituximab were recruited. Skin testing screening with rituximab was conducted before the first infusion. Patients with positive skin testing results underwent desensitization, while those with negative results received rituximab at a standard infusion rate. All immediate HSRs were recorded, and the predictive value of positive skin testing results for immediate HSRs to rituximab was analyzed.

Results

In the 19 patients who adopted the novel protocol, six patients (31.6%) had immediate HSRs during the first infusion, with three mild reactions (15.8%), two moderate reactions (10.5%), and only one severe reaction (5.3%). The positive predictive value of intradermal test (IDT) with 1 mg/mL rituximab solution for immediate HSR was 100%, and the negative predictive value was 84.6%.

Conclusion

The protocol of skin testing screening and desensitization might have some potential to control the incidence and severity of immediate HSRs to rituximab during the first exposure. IDT result before the first infusion could become a useful predictor for immediate HSR to rituximab.