First case of allergy to nivolumab

Camrelizumab-induced anaphylactic reaction: a case report and literature review

Camrelizumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor clinically used to treat various types of tumours. In this study, the authors provided the first report of a case of an anaphylactic reaction induced by camrelizumab in the treatment of a patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of the mouth. The patient, a 58-year-old man, was diagnosed with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the floor of the mouth, with cancer infiltration and multiple metastases. He underwent treatment for nine cycles, in which cycles 1-5 he received camrelizumab, albumin-bound paclitaxel, and cisplatin (200 mg of camrelizumab each time, every 3 weeks), with no adverse reactions; in cycle 6, he received albumin-bound paclitaxel and cisplatin, with no adverse reactions; and in cycles 7-9, he received camrelizumab and albumin-bound paclitaxel. However, 30 min after 8th administration of camrelizumab (cycle 9), he suddenly developed sweating, a pale complexion, clamminess and cyanosis of the limbs (percutaneous arterial oxygen saturation [SpO2] = 82%, blood pressure [BP] = 79/49 mmHg, heart rate [HR] = 83 beats/min [bpm] and respiratory rate [RR) = 12 bpm). The patient underwent intravenous infusion of methylprednisolone (80 mg) combined with dopamine to boost the BP; he regained consciousness 20 min later, and many parts of his skin appeared smooth, with no desquamation and accompanied by itching erythema, especially on the upper limbs. Approximately 2 h after treatment, the patient's skin erythema subsided (vital sign monitoring results: SpO2 = 100%, BP = 122/84 mmHg, HR = 91 bpm and RR = 17 bpm); the patient did not complain about his obvious discomfort. Despite the rarity of acute anaphylactic reactions among immune-related adverse reactions, great importance should be given to anaphylactic reactions of camrelizumab due to its extensive clinical application.

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.

Camrelizumab-induced anaphylactic shock in an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patient: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Camrelizumab (SHR-1210), an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is clinically used as a therapeutic option for various types of tumors. However, reports of adverse reactions associated with camrelizumab are gradually increasing. Anaphylactic shock due to camrelizumab has not been reported previously, until now. We report here, for the first time, a case of anaphylactic shock associated with camrelizumab in a patient with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

CASE SUMMARY

An 84-year-old male esophageal cancer patient received radiotherapy and chemotherapy 11 years ago. He was diagnosed with advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with liver metastasis (TxN1M1) and received the first immunotherapy (camrelizumab 200 mg/each time, once every 3 wk) dose in December 2020, with no adverse reactions. Three weeks later, a generalized rash was noted on the chest and upper limbs; palpitations and breathing difficulties with a sense of dying occurred 10 min after the patient had been administered with the second camrelizumab therapy. Electrocardiograph monitoring revealed a 70 beats/min pulse rate, 69/24 mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) blood pressure, 28 breaths/min respiratory rate, and 86% pulse oximetry in room air. The patient was diagnosed with anaphylactic shock and was managed with intravenous fluid, adrenaline, dexamethasone sodium phosphate, calcium glucosate, and noradrenaline. Approximately 2 h after treatment, the patient’s anaphylactic shock symptoms had been completely relieved.

CONCLUSION

Due to the widespread use of camrelizumab, attention should be paid to anti-programmed cell death 1 antibody therapy-associated hypersensitivity or anaphylactic shock.

Refractory cytokine release reaction to Nivolumab: Following desensitization algorithms to optimize the management of drug hypersensitivity

INTRODUCTION

Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody (moAb) against programmed cell death protein 1, approved for the treatment of over ten types of cancer. The use of this and other moAbs has augmented considerably in recent years and this in turn has caused an increase of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR).

CASE REPORT

We present the case of a patient with metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) who developed a grade 3 cytokine release reaction (CRR) to nivolumab. The maintenance of the symptoms despite of the administration of symptomatic treatment and slowing down the infusion rate of nivolumab during the 1st and 2nd reaction required an allergy evaluation of our patient.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

Skin testing to Nivolumab with negative results and baseline tryptase within the normal range were observed during the allergy workout. A desensitization protocol with specific premedication was applied to reintroduce the moAb, with no further issues. Moreover, a follow up of the patient in the oncology setting was done showing disease stabilization.

DISCUSSION

The CRR should be treated by desensitization, in contrast to infusion reactions. The diagnosis of CRR phenotype is based on the clinical presentation and recently, and elevation of IL-6 levels has been shown to be a useful biomarker along with negative skin testing. We can conclude that after a HSR and an appropriate allergy diagnosis of CRR, nivolumab can be safely reintroduced by desensitization without reducing the target dose or the appropriate dilution concentration.

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.

The Role of Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 2,402 Patients

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as a treatment option for several malignancies. Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab have been approved for the management of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to systematically review the literature and summarize the characteristics and outcomes of patients with HCC treated with ICIs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed according to the PRISMA statement (end of search date: November 7, 2020). Quality of evidence assessment was also performed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three articles including 2,402 patients were analyzed, 2,376 of whom received ICIs for unresectable HCC. Response to ICIs could be evaluated in 2,116 patients; the overall objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 22.7% and 60.7%, respectively, and the mean overall survival (OS) was 15.8 months. The ORR, DCR, and OS for nivolumab (n = 846) were 19.7%, 51.1%, and 18.7 months, respectively; for pembrolizumab (n = 435) they were 20.7%, 64.6% and 13.3 months, respectively. The combination of atezolizumab/bevacizumab (n = 460) demonstrated an ORR and DCR of 30% and 77%, respectively. The overall rate of treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 14.9%. Fifteen patients received ICIs in the liver transplant (LT) setting (one pre-LT for bridging, 14 for post-LT recurrence); fatal graft rejection was reported in 40.0% (n = 6/15) and mortality in 80.0% (n = 12/15).

CONCLUSION

ICIs are safe and effective against unresectable HCC, but caution is warranted regarding their use in the LT setting because of the high graft rejection rate.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This systematic review pooled the outcomes from studies reporting on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the management of 2,402 patients with advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 2,376 of whom had unresectable HCC. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 22.7% and 60.7%, respectively, and the mean overall survival was 15.8 months. The overall rate of treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 14.9%. Fifteen patients received ICIs in the liver transplant (LT) setting (one pre-LT for bridging, 14 for post-LT recurrence). Six of these patients experienced graft rejection (40.0%).

Severe infusion reaction due to nivolumab: A case report

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is an anti-PD1 immune checkpoint inhibitor commonly used for the treatment of solid organ and hematological malignancies. Severe infusion reaction due to nivolumab is quite rare.

CASE

We report a case of severe infusion reaction due to nivolumab necessitating ICU admission and withdrawal of further nivolumab use in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our knowledge and expertise with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors are still evolving. This report highlights one of the rare possible side-effects that clinicians and patients may have to face with increasing indications and use of nivolumab in day to day practice.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics (part II): classifications and current diagnostic and treatment approaches

Purpose

Biotechnological substances (BS) have rapidly expanded their clinical use. In parallel, there is an increase in expected or unexpected immunological or non-immunological adverse effects. In this part of the review, the current nomenclature of BSs, the classification of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR), as well as diagnostic and treatment approaches are documented to provide the tools to understand the nomenclature used throughout the databases and the need to harmonize it where applicable.

Methods

Detailed searches were performed on Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to include all available publications. The search terms, such as specific BS, allergy, anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, reactions, classification, diagnosis, grading, management, and desensitization, were determined for the search. Case reports, articles, and reviews on this subject were included.

Results

Today, a variety of non-standardized methods are used to support the clinical diagnosis. These include prick-to-prick tests and intradermal tests with the drug itself and its potentially allergenic ingredients. More rarely, anti-drug antibodies are detected and basophil activation tests are used by centers with research facilities. Although the treatment protocols for acute conditions vary, the overall approach is the same.

Conclusion

HSRs to BS are gradually increasing with the widening of their clinical use and indications. It is very important to prevent HSRs and to know the degree of severity as well as the emergency treatment algorithm. This review summarizes the diagnostic tests that should be applied: (a) immediately during/after a reaction, and (b) subsequently, and in the case that a switch of BS is not possible, desensitization is an option.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics (part I): allergy as an important differential diagnosis in complex immune-derived adverse events

Purpose

Biotechnological substances (BSs) are strongly relied upon to prevent rejection of transplanted organs, and to treat oncological, allergological, and other inflammatory diseases. Allergic reactions to partly foreign biologics can occur due to their potential immunogenicity. The severity of an immune response to a biological drug may range from no clinical significance to a severe, life-threatening anaphylactic reaction.

Methods

Detailed searches were performed on Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to include all available publications. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and British Columbia Cancer Agency Drug Manual databases were screened for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR), infusion reaction, injection site reaction, urticaria, and anaphylaxis for individual BSs.

Results

Treatment with BSs can cause various types of HSR. These are mentioned in the literature with definitions such as allergic reactions, anaphylactoid reactions, anaphylaxis, HSR, infusion reactions, injection site reactions, cytokine release syndrome, and urticaria. Due to the overlap in signs and symptoms in the reported descriptions, it is not always possible to differentiate these reactions properly according to their pathomechanism. Similarly, many data reported as anaphylaxis actually describe severe anaphylactic reactions (grades III or IV).

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a simpler symptom- or system-based classification and scoring system to create an awareness for HSRs to BSs. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of HSRs and increased clinical experience in the treatment of side effects will provide timely control of unexpected reactions. As a result, immunotherapy with BSs will become safer in the future.

Hypereosinophilia in a patient with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer treated with antiprogrammed cell death 1 (anti-PD-1) therapy

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed the treatment paradigm for patients with cancer. Though a majority of patients tolerate treatment, some develop hematologic toxicities, including eosinophilia. Eosinophilia has been associated with better responses in some patients with melanoma, but this has not been investigated in non-small-cell lung cancer. We present a case of a woman with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who developed asymptomatic hypereosinophilia after initiation of nivolumab. Her eosinophil count temporarily decreased after transiently stopping the medication, but increased again after re-initiation. She had a favorable tumor response to therapy. This exemplifies the potential role of eosinophilia as a peripheral, readily available biomarker of favorable response to immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer. Awareness of this manifestation is important.

Coronary Toxicities of Anti-PD-1 and Anti-PD-L1 Immunotherapies: a Case Report and Review of the Literature and International Registries

Immunotherapy medications that target programmed death 1 protein (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab, are currently used in the first- or second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancers, among other indications. However, these agents are associated with immune-related side effects, the most common of which are endocrinopathies, colitis, hepatitis, and interstitial pneumonitis. In contrast, coronary toxicities are rarely reported and remain poorly understood. Here, we describe the case of a patient who developed an acute coronary syndrome when treated with nivolumab as second-line therapy for metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma. A review of the literature, the French pharmacovigilance registry, and the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database led to the identification of four cases of patients with coronary manifestations attributable to anti-PD1 immunotherapy (with no reported cases of patients undergoing anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy), which we describe herein. The potential mechanisms causing adverse coronary reactions to this type of therapy, which is used to treat lung cancer as well as other solid and hematological neoplastic diseases, are also discussed.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.