Desensitization to Lenalidomide in a Patient With Relapsed Multiple Myeloma

Desensitization protocol to lenalidomide: An effective and safe treatment modality for delayed hypersensitivity-induced rash in patients with multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Lenalidomide is considered a standard of care in multiple myeloma (MM) Some MM patients will develop delayed hypersensitivity to lenalidomide, which can lead to treatment discontinuation. Desensitization to lenalidomide can help these patients to complete treatment courses. Here, we aimed to review lenalidomide-treated MM patients who developed delayed hypersensitivity-induced rash and were treated with desensitization.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical files of MM patients, who were desensitized to lenalidomide due to delayed hypersensitivity rash. Patients were treated between 2018 and 2022 at Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.

RESULTS

Search of patients yielded 16 patients that underwent desensitization to lenalidomide within the study period. The desensitization protocol consisted of a slow, 3-week-long protocol with lenalidomide's target doses of 10, 15, and 25 mg/day. Of the 16 patients, 10 (62.5%) succeeded to complete the protocol and thus were able to complete lenalidomide treatment cycles. One patient with unsuccessful desensitization was subsequently treated with first-generation IMiD thalidomide, with no rash appearing. None of the patients that were treated with desensitization had severe immune-mediated or non-dermatological adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Desensitization to lenalidomide is safe and effective. Discontinuation of lenalidomide in MM patients with delayed hypersensitivity and no contraindication to desensitization should be discouraged. Collaboration between hematologists and allergists is needed.

Lenalidomide Desensitization for Delayed Cutaneous Reaction: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Lenalidomide is commonly used for treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) as well as other hematological disorders. Cutaneous adverse reactions occur frequently and withholding lenalidomide treatment may have implications for prognosis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of lenalidomide desensitization in patients with cutaneous adverse reactions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients referred for lenalidomide desensitization between May 2019 and May 2022 at a tertiary hospital. All patients underwent a 6-week outpatient desensitization with premedication.

RESULTS

There were 12 patients: 10 males and 2 females with a median age of 65 years. All had MM with autologous stem cell transplantation and lenalidomide 10 mg daily added for maintenance therapy. Most patients (n = 8) had a generalized maculopapular exanthem with or without pruritus. All patients had delayed cutaneous reactions; the median time to onset was 14 days (range 2-28 d). Six patients tolerated desensitization: 5 on the first attempt and 1 after 3 attempts and supplementary oral prednisolone. Four patients underwent multiple (≤3) attempts at desensitization owing to breakthrough symptoms. In patients who failed desensitization, recurrence of symptoms occurred variably, either early (within days), within weeks, or delayed by more than 1 month.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenalidomide desensitization is worthwhile and allows continuation of treatment. In our MM cohort, lenalidomide desensitization was successful in only 50% of cases, including some cases in whom ongoing symptoms were mitigated by cotreatment with antihistamine.

Lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone induction therapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a practical review

For patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, survival outcomes continue to improve significantly: however, nearly all patients will relapse following induction treatment. Optimisation of induction therapy is essential to provide longer term disease control and the current standard of care for most patients incorporates an immunomodulatory agent and proteasome inhibitor, most commonly lenalidomide and bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (RVD), with maintenance until progression. Historically there has been limited access to RVD as an induction strategy outside of the United States; fortunately, there is now increasing access worldwide. This review discusses the rationale for use of RVD as induction therapy and aims to provide guidance in prescribing this regimen in order to optimise efficacy while minimising the toxicities of treatment. We also highlight the increasing evidence for the utility of addition of a monoclonal antibody to the RVD backbone to deepen responses and potentially provide longer disease control.

Simple desensitization protocol for multiple myeloma patients with lenalidomide-induced skin rash: Case series

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Skin rash is one of the typical side effects of lenalidomide (LEN) treatment. Desensitization therapies have been reported to be effective in patients with severe skin rash caused by LEN. However, they have proved impractical due to the complexity of the protocols.

CASE SUMMARIES

We present 5 patients who developed severe LEN-induced skin rash. The five patients received our simple, slow desensitization protocol, and all were re-administered LEN with no adverse reaction.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our simpler and slow desensitization protocol, which desensitizes the patients without reducing the effect of LEN, includes drug holidays, similar to the usual LEN dosing schedule, and moreover is recommended as a treatment option especially for elderly patients with no housemate to help with medical management.

A practical 16-day desensitization protocol in lenalidomide-induced non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions

BACKGROUND

Desensitization in immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) caused by chemotherapeutics is well described and standardized for many drugs. However, there are no standardized protocols in non-immediate HRs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a 16-day desensitization protocol in the non-immediate HRs induced by lenalidomide.

METHODS

According to our previously published slow desensitization protocol, we desensitized patients who had experienced non-immediate HRs attributable to lenalidomide. The protocol was started with the 1/100 of the daily-prescribed dose in milligrams of the culprit drug; then the doses were slowly increased to complete the procedure in 16 days. Demographic and clinical features of the patients were further appraised.

RESULTS

Ten patients (mean age was 64.7 ± 10.8 years; 7 male) were successfully desensitized to lenalidomide. The mean reaction time was 7.3 ± 3.9 days in the history, and the reaction types were delayed urticaria (n = 4), eczematous rash (n = 3), and maculopapular eruptions (n = 3). The desensitization was successfully completed in 16 days in 9 patients. In 1 patient, maculopapular eruptions developed on the 11th day, and the patient was treated with corticosteroids. We repeated the previous tolerated dose longer and completed with a slower dose increasement, and the targeted dose was achieved in 35 days.

CONCLUSION

The 16-day desensitization protocol seemed to be safe and effective in the non-immediate type drug HRs caused by lenalidomide.

Incidence of neutropenia and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors in multiple myeloma: is current clinical practice adequate?

Although immunomodulatory drugs, alkylating agents, corticosteroids, protease inhibitors, and therapeutic monoclonal antibodies improve multiple myeloma outcomes, treatment burden is still an issue. Neutropenia is a known complication of cytotoxic cancer therapy and is often associated with infections; it is an important consideration in myeloma given the fact that patients often have a weakened immune system. The risk of febrile neutropenia increases with severe and persisting neutropenia. Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are commonly used to reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of febrile neutropenia. Here, we review the risk and management of neutropenia associated with new and commonly used anti-myeloma agents. Few papers report the use of G-CSF in patients with multiple myeloma receiving anti-cancer treatments, and fewer describe whether G-CSF was beneficial. None of the identified studies reported G-CSF primary prophylaxis. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the need for G-CSF prophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Prophylaxis may be particularly useful in patients at high risk of prolonged severe neutropenia.

Pomalidomide desensitization in a patient hypersensitive to immunomodulating agents

Despite progressive treatments with tandem stem-cell transplantation, patients with incurable myeloma eventually succumb to relapsed or refractory disease if left untreated. Promising agents such as proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulating imide drugs (imids), including the newer-generation agent pomalidomide, in combination with lower-dose dexamethasone, have been shown to be effective and to significantly improve and prolong survival in pretreated patients. Although the incidence of pomalidomide hypersensitivity reaction (hsr) in this class of drugs is not as well known, we have documented cutaneous toxicity (grade 3 by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4) in 2 separate cases (not yet published). Because the imids are chemically, structurally, and pharmacologically similar, it is not unreasonable to consider possible cross-reactivity in pomalidomide recipients who developed hsr when receiving previous lines of imids. As a patient's advocate, it is only prudent to provide a responsible, and yet practical, means to better address cross-sensitivity for patients. Intervention with the use of a rapid desensitization program (rdp) as a preventive measure should be introduced before initiating pomalidomide. Such a proactive measure for the patient's safety will ensure a smooth transition into pomalidomide treatment. A hsr can be either related or non-related to immunoglobulin E. As imids become an essential treatment backbone for myeloma and other plasma-cell diseases, an increasing number of patients could experience skin and other life-threatening toxicities, resulting in unnecessary discontinuation of these life-prolonging agents. An extemporaneously prepared pomalidomide suspension developed at our centre enables patients to undergo rdp safely. Patients enjoy a good quality of life and clinical response after the rdp procedure.

Lenalidomide Desensitization in Systemic Light-Chain Amyloidosis With Multi-Organ Involvement

Limited therapeutic options are available to amyloid patients treated with many lines of therapy. Although combination therapy using lenalidomide and dexamethasone is an effective sequential regimen for systemic amyloidosis (AL), dexamethasone is often poorly tolerated in patients with cardiac involvement. Lenalidomide as single agent has modest activity, but when used in combination with dexamethasone, careful titration is needed. Dermatological adverse reactions can be problematic to patients on lenalidomide-based therapy. Lowering lenalidomide doses have not been able to consistently prevent recurrent skin toxicity. We report a patient who was neither eligible for stem cell transplant nor able to tolerate previous lines of therapy. Therapeutic dilemma arose from lenalidomide-related moderately severe skin toxicity. We enrolled the patient in the lenalidomide rapid desensitization program (RDP) with success in the presence of poor cardiac reserve and renal impairment. No recurrence of skin rash was observed during the course of therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first AL patients who received and tolerated RDP well, despite multi-organ impairments. The target dose may be achieved based on individual patient’s ability to tolerate RDP. Incremental dose increase can be applied in future dates without risk of rash recurrence.