Allergy Evaluation of Hypersensitivity to Platinum Salts and Taxanes: A Six-Year Experience

Risk factors for skin injuries in cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheter: A prospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk factors for skin injuries remain poorly understood in cancer patients with peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC). We herein aimed at exploring the effect of clinical factors on the risk of PICC-related skin injuries.

METHODS

We included 1245 cancer patients with PICC from 16 hospitals in Suzhou, China. The study outcome was in-hospital skin injuries, including contact dermatitis, skin (epidermal) stripping, tension injury, allergic dermatitis, skin tear, maceration, folliculitis, and pressure injury.

RESULTS

During hospitalization, 274 patients (22.0%) developed skin injuries after prolonged use of an indwelling catheter. Univariable logistic regression analysis identified several risk factors for PICC-related skin injuries; multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the following factors independently and significantly (p < 0.05) associated with the risk of PICC-related skin injuries: body mass index (BMI, >25 kg/m2 versus <18.5 kg/m2: odds ratio (OR), 1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-3.11), skin condition (humid vs normal: OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.62-5.43), skin indentation (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 3.31-6.58), allergic history (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.21-3.66), history of dermatitis (OR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.00-9.28), history of eczema (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.20-9.43), catheter insertion site (under elbow vs. upper arm: OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.12-9.90), and PICC maintenance interval (4-5 days vs ⩽3 days: OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50; 5-7 days vs ⩽3 days: OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.31; 7-9 days vs ⩽3 days: OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.57).

CONCLUSIONS

BMI, skin condition, skin indentation, allergic history, history of dermatitis, history of eczema, catheter insertion site, and PICC maintenance interval were independent risk factors for PICC-related skin injuries in cancer patients. This knowledge will guide future studies with formulating optimal treatment strategies for improving the skin health of cancer patients with PICC.

How to Define and Manage Low-Risk Drug Allergy Labels

Risk stratification in drug allergy implies that specific risk categories (eg, low, moderate, and high) classify historical drug hypersensitivity reactions. These risk categories can be based on reaction phenotypic characteristics, the timing of the reaction and evaluation, the required reaction management, and individual characteristics. Although a multitude of frameworks have been described in the literature, particularly for penicillin allergy labels, there has yet to be a global consensus, and approaches continue to vary between allergy centers. Immune-mediated drug allergies can sometimes be confirmed using skin testing, but a negative drug challenge is required to demonstrate tolerance and remove the allergy from the electronic health record ("delabel" the allergy). Even for quintessential IgE-mediated drug allergy, penicillin allergy, recent data reveal that a direct oral challenge, without prior skin testing, is an appropriate diagnostic strategy in those who are considered low-risk. Drug allergy pathogenesis and clinical manifestations may vary depending on the culprit drug, and as such, the optimal approach should be based on risk stratification that considers individual patient and reaction characteristics, the likely hypersensitivity reaction phenotype, the drug class, and the patient's clinical needs. This article will describe low-risk drug allergy labels, focusing on β-lactam and sulfonamide antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, iodinated contrast media, and common chemotherapeutics. This review will also address practical management approaches using currently available risk stratification and clinical decision tools.

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.

Systemic allergic contact dermatitis to palladium, platinum, and titanium: mechanisms, clinical manifestations, prevalence, and therapeutic approaches

Contact dermatitis (CD) is an inflammatory skin disease of eczema that is elicited by chemicals or metal ions that have toxic effects without eliciting a T-cell response (contact elicitation) or by small reactive chemicals that modify proteins and induce innate and adaptive immune responses (contact allergens). The clinical condition is characterized by localized skin rash, pruritus, redness, swelling, and lesions, which are mainly detected by patch tests and lymphocyte stimulation. Heavy metals such as palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and titanium (Ti) are ubiquitous in our environment. These heavy metals have shown CD effects as allergic agents. Immunological responses result from the interaction of cytokines and T cells. Occupational metal CD accounts for most cases of work-related cutaneous disorders. In this systematic review, the allergic effects of heavy metals, including Pd, Pt, and Ti, and the mechanisms, clinical manifestations, prevalence, and therapeutic approaches are discussed in detail. Furthermore, the therapeutic approaches introduced to treat CD, including corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors, systemic immunosuppressive agents, phototherapy, and antihistamines, can be effective in the treatment of these diseases in the future. Ultimately, the insights identified could lead to improved therapeutic and diagnostic pathways.

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.

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.

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.

Complete metabolic response after carboplatin desensitization in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

INTRODUCTION

High-grade serous primary peritoneal cancer is highly sensitive to platinum-based chemotherapy with response rates above 80%. Incidence of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin is estimated to be between 15% and 20%, usually seen after a mean of 6-8 infusions, with patients developing moderate to severe reactions.

CASE REPORT

A 62-year-old female patient with stage IIIC primary high-grade serous carcinoma of the peritoneum was diagnosed and chemotherapy with carboplatin and Paclitaxel was indicated by the oncology service and patient shows response. At 6 months the patient returns, a new PET/CT reports progression of the disease. Carboplatin/paclitaxel cycles are restarted and in the eight cycle of carboplatin within 40 min of administration, she presented severe anaphylaxis with skin, pulmonary, cardiac and atypical symptoms. Infusion is suspended and intramuscular epinephrine with hydrocortisone and chlorphenamine are administered resolving symptoms.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

Intradermal skin test with carboplatin at the concentration of 10 mg / ml (dilution 1: 100) was positive. Due to the symptoms presented and to continue the safe reintroduction to carboplatin, a 4 bag 16-step drug desensitization protocol was carried out at a total dose of 620 mg with no hypersensitivity reactions.

DISCUSSION

Prolonged carboplatin use is associated with an increased incidence of carboplatin-related hypersensitivity reactions. And in patients that present hypersensitivity reactions, a safe and effective carboplatin desensitization protocol can be carried out to reach the administration of a full dose. Desensitization protocol induces tolerance to a drug temporarily and is dependent on continuous exposure.

Hypersensitivity Reactions: Practice Recommendations for Paclitaxel Administration

Paclitaxel is a high-alert IV oncology medication that causes hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in 10%-40% of infusions, predominantly during the first or second infusion. Although paclitaxel has been a common medication in cancer treatment regimens for decades, the literature fails to address the safest approach for administration to minimize HSRs. Oncology teams may implement different methods of administration. To address safety concerns and inconsistent findings in the literature, an advanced oncology clinical nurse specialist initiated a team-based quality improvement project. This retrospective study included chart reviews to assess organizational outpatient practices and documentation for paclitaxel administration. Results from this project were the basis for reinstating a standard order set, which includes titration during the first and second paclitaxel infusions to maximize patient safety.

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.

Medical adhesive-related skin injury in cancer patients: A prospective cohort study

Objective:

to estimate the incidence of medical adhesive-related skin injury in the peripheral venous catheter fixation region in critical cancer patients, to identify risk factors, and to establish a risk prediction model for its development.

Method:

a prospective cohort study with a sample of 100 adult and aged patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit. The data were analyzed using descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistics with Cox regression.

Results:

the incidence of medical adhesive-related skin injury was 31.0% and the incidence density was 3.4 cases per 100 people-days. The risk factors were as follows: alcoholism, smoking habit, hospitalization due to deep vein thrombosis, acute respiratory failure, immediate postoperative period, heart disease, dyslipidemia, use of antiarrhythmics, blood transfusion, friction injury, pressure injury, turgor, edema, hematoma, petechiae, low values in the Braden scale, clinical severity of the patient, elasticity, moisture, texture and color. The predictive model consisted in the following: decreased skin turgor, presence of hematoma and edema.

Conclusion:

medical adhesive-related skin injury at the peripheral venous catheter insertion site has a high incidence in critical cancer patients and is associated with decreased turgor, presence of hematoma and edema, evidence that can support the clinical practice.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Platinum Agents and Taxanes

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to chemotherapy agents can present a serious challenge to treating patients with preferred or first-line therapies. Allergic reactions through an immunologic mechanism have been established for platinum and taxane agents, which are used to treat a wide variety of cancers including gynecologic cancers. Platin HSRs typically occur after multiple cycles of chemotherapy, reflecting the development of drug IgE sensitization, while taxane HSRs often occur on first or second exposure. Despite observed differences between platin and taxane HSRs, drug desensitization has been an effective method to reintroduce both chemotherapeutic agents safely. Skin testing is the primary diagnostic tool used to risk-stratify patients after initial HSRs, with more widespread use for platinum agents than taxanes. Different practices exist around the use of skin testing, drug challenge, and choice of desensitization protocol. Here, we review the epidemiology, mechanism, and clinical presentation of HSRs to platinum and taxane agents, as well as key controversies in their evaluation and management.

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.

Value of skin tests for managing allergic hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds

Background Platinum-based therapy continues to be one of the pillars of the treatment of different types of cancer. However, many times the responsible clinician renounces its use after the appearance of a hypersensitivity reaction. Objective To assess the value of skin tests (ST) in clinical practice to address the treatment of patients with suspicion of immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to platinum compounds. Method Single-center retrospective study of 3 years. Adult patients treated with any platinum compound who experienced HSR symptoms and for whom an oncologist requested ST, were included. ST with cisplatin, carboplatin and oxaliplatin were performed. Results Twenty-two patients were included. ST were positive in 12 patients (54.5%), of which 4 (33%) presented cross-reactivity to another platinum compound. Fifteen patients continued platinum-based chemotherapy: 9 patients with positive ST (4 continued by desensitization and 5 with another platinum compound) and 6 patients with negative ST, of which 1 repeated an HSR. A NPV of 0.91 was calculated. Conclusion ST helped physicians identify patients most susceptible to platinum derivative allergies and resume platinum-based therapy in many patients for whom no suitable therapeutic alternative was clinically acceptable.

HIPEC with cisplatin in a patient with a prior hypersensitivity reaction to systemic oxaliplatin

Platinum-based chemotherapeutic agents are commonly used in the treatment of several cancers. While effective, they are often discontinued due to toxicities and hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) that occur more frequently with repeated exposure. Following discontinuation of one agent, therapy may be continued with a second platinum salt, though the cross-reactivity between agents in this class is not well understood. This is particularly true for alternative routes of administration such as hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). In this case report, we describe the use of cisplatin during HIPEC in a patient who previously experienced an HSR to systemic oxaliplatin. The patient tolerated HIPEC including 200 mg cisplatin for 1 hour without any adverse effects and did not require a desensitization protocol prior to therapy. This case suggests that HIPEC with platinum-based agents can be performed in patients with prior HSRs to systemic therapy, though further studies are needed to understand safety parameters, the cross-reactivity between agents and the necessity of skin testing or desensitization protocols.

Successful oxaliplatin desensitization protocol in a patient with colorectal metastatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Platinum compounds are frequently used for the treatment of colorectal cancer as initial chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin is a third-generation platinum used for the treatment of stage III colorectal cancer and is associated with hypersensitivity reactions. The incidence of hypersensitivity reaction is approximately 12%, with 1-2% of patients developing moderate to severe reactions.

CASE REPORT

A 54-year-old male patient with stage III B colon cancer was diagnosed and chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was indicated by the oncology service. Within 20 min of the first cycle of oxaliplatin, he developed dyspnea, laryngeal spam, foreign body sensation in the throat, nausea, and diarrhea; therefore, the infusion of oxaliplatin was suspended, and intramuscular epinephrine was administered and intravenous hydrocortisone along with chlorpheniramine with adequate resolution of symptoms.Management and outcome: Intradermal skin test performed at the concentration of 5 mg/ml (dilution 1:100) was positive. Due to the symptoms presented we decided to perform desensitization to oxaliplatin (total dose: 250 mg) with three bags-12 steps protocol with an initial concentration dose of 1/100 of the total dose in a course of 5.56 h with no hypersensitivity reactions.

DISCUSSION

Approximately 50% of patients who are exposed to oxaliplatin may have hypersensitivity despite premedication. Desensitization protocol induces tolerance to a drug temporarily and is dependent on continuous exposure.

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.