Controversies in Allergy: Chemotherapy Reactions, Desensitize, or Delabel?

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.

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.

Hypersensitivity Reactions to Taxanes: A Multicenter Study for Outcomes and Safety of Rapid Drug Desensitization

PURPOSE

Taxanes can cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), which pose a significant challenge in the treatment of malignancies. Patients who are eligible for rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can continue treatment; however, some patients experience breakthrough reactions (BTRs). Data about risk factors for BTRs during RDDs in patients with HSRs to taxanes are limited.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective study of patients with immediate-HSRs to taxanes. Initial HSRs were classified as grade 1, 2, or 3 based on severity. Prick/intradermal skin tests were performed with implicated taxanes. A 12-step protocol was used during RDD.

RESULTS

The study comprised 75 patients (F/M: 63/12, mean age 49.92 ± 11.72 years, 43 HSRs to paclitaxel, 32 HSRs to docetaxel). The majority of reactions (86.7%) occurred during the first or second exposure. The prevalence of drug allergy history was higher in patients with paclitaxel HSR than in those with docetaxel HSR, although it was not statistically significant (23.3% vs. 6.3%). The initial HSRs were mostly grade 2 (n = 50, 66.7%) or grade 3 (n = 22, 29.3%). Skin tests with implicated taxanes were done on 48 patients, and the rate of positive response in patients with grade 1, 2, and 3 initial HSRs were 50%, 17.6%, and 16.7%, respectively. . A total of 255 RDDs were completely performed, although BTRs occurred in 27 (grade 1, 55.6%; grade 2, 40.7%; grade 3, 3.7%). There were no statistically significant correlations between the risk of BTR and age, drug cycle, gender, positivity of skin test or atopy. The step reduction was successfully done on 9 eligible patients with mild or moderate HSRs during the 12-step RDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates a 100% success rate in completing the 255 RDDs for taxanes, affirming the safety and efficacy of the RDD within the study population.

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.

Pearls for practice from the 2022 joint task force drug allergy practice parameter

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review updated recommendations in the 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameters for the evaluation and management of drug hypersensitivity reactions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adverse drug reactions have become increasingly prominent with the advent of new and emerging pharmacologic therapies. Hypersensitivity reactions encompass a significant proportion of adverse drug reactions and negatively impact both the individual patient and overall health system. Reactions are heterogeneous in presentation and may be immediate (onset of symptoms ≤6 h) or delayed (onset of symptoms >6 h to months) after drug exposure. The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides consensus-based statements for evaluation of hypersensitivity reactions to antibiotics, NSAIDs, cancer chemotherapies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, biologics, and excipients. In general, the guideline highlights the importance of patient history in elucidating the phenotype and severity of the index reaction. Drug challenge remains the gold standard for diagnosis and is increasingly favored over skin testing in patients with nonsevere, nonanaphylactic drug reaction histories.

SUMMARY

The 2022 Drug Allergy Practice Parameter provides an updated framework for physicians to reference in clinical practice when managing patients with drug hypersensitivity 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.

Biodegradable hydrogel from pectin and carboxymethyl cellulose with Silibinin loading for lung tumor therapy

Serious side effects of chemotherapy drugs greatly limited the anticancer performance, while targeted drug delivery could improve the therapeutic effect and reduce side effects. In this work, biodegradable hydrogel was fabricated from pectin hydrazide (pec-H) and oxidized carboxymethyl cellulose (DCMC) for localized Silibinin delivery in lung adenocarcinoma treatment. The self-healing pec-H/DCMC hydrogel showed blood compatibility and cell compatibility both in vitro and in vivo, and could be degraded by enzymes. The hydrogel also formed fast fit for injectable applications and showed sustained drug release characteristic sensitive to pH based on acylhydrzone bond cross-linked networks. The Silibinin, as a specific lung cancer inhibiting drug targets TMEM16A ion channel, was loaded into the pec-H/DCMC hydrogel to treat the lung cancer in mice model. The results showed that the hydrogel loaded Silibinin significantly enhanced the anti-tumor efficiency in vivo and greatly reduced the toxicity of the Silibinin. Based on the dual effect of improving efficacy and reducing side effects, the pec-H/DCMC hydrogel with Silibinin loading have broad application prospects to inhibit lung tumor growth in clinic.

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.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics in children

INTRODUCTION

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) have been observed with the use of biologics in children. The management of HSRs in children is mainly based on experiences from the adult population. Recently, data from different centers experienced in managing these reactions, including desensitization in children, have been published, allowing clinicians to have an appropriate global overview and compare results.

AREAS COVERED

This review highlights the published data on hypersensitivity reactions to biologics in children and drug desensitization protocols adapted to the pediatric population.

EXPERT OPINION

With regard to HSRs to biologics in children, few data are available. Compared with the adult population, there is a lack of knowledge in the endophenotypes, management and the standardization of protocols including premedication regimens in children. An international consensus is needed to provide clinicians with new insight on how to apply personalized management and to perform tailored desensitization protocols in pediatric populations. Various specialists including allergists, pediatricians, oncologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and pharmacists, should build a multidisciplinary management team to keep pediatric patients on their best treatment options in the safest manner.

Drug hypersensitivity, in vitro tools, biomarkers, and burden with COVID-19 vaccines

Hypersensitivity reactions to drugs are increasing worldwide. They display a large degree of variability in the immunological mechanisms involved, which impacts both disease severity and the optimal diagnostic procedure. Therefore, drug hypersensitivity diagnosis relies on both in vitro and in vivo assessments, although most of the methods are not well standardized. Moreover, several biomarkers can be used as valuable parameters for precision medicine that provide information on the endotypes, diagnosis, prognosis, and prediction of drug hypersensitivity development, as well on the identification of therapeutic targets and treatment efficacy monitoring. Furthermore, in the last 2 years, the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus) pandemic has had an important impact on health system, leading us to update approaches on how to manage hypersensitivity reactions to drugs used for its treatment and on COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease) vaccines used for its prevention. This article reviews recent advances in these 3 areas regarding drug hypersensitivity: in vitro tools for drug hypersensitivity diagnosis, recently identified biomarkers that could guide clinical decision making and management of hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines used for COVID-19.

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

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to intravenous drugs can be severe and might leave patients and doctors in a difficult position where an essential treatment or intervention has to be suspended. Even if virtually any intravenous medication can potentially trigger a life-threatening DHR, chemotherapeutics, biologics, and antibiotics are amongst the intravenous drugs most frequently involved in these reactions. Admittedly, suspending such treatments may negatively impact the survival outcomes or the quality of life of affected patients.

Delabeling pathways and rapid drug desensitization (RDD) can help reactive patients stay on first-choice therapies instead of turning to less efficacious, less cost-effective, or more toxic alternatives. However, these are high-complexity and high-risk techniques, which usually need expert teams and allergy-specific techniques (skin testing, in vitro testing, drug provocation testing) to ensure safety, an accurate diagnosis, and personalized management. Unfortunately, there are significant inequalities within and among countries in access to allergy departments with the necessary expertise and resources to offer these techniques and tackle these DHRs optimally.

The main objective of this consensus document is to create a great benefit for patients worldwide by aiding allergists to expand the scope of their practice and support them with evidence, data, and experience from leading groups from around the globe.

This statement of the Drug Hypersensitivity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) aims to be a comprehensive practical guide on the technical aspects of implementing acute-onset intravenous hypersensitivity delabeling and RDD for a wide range of drugs. Thus, the manuscript does not only focus on clinical pathways. Instead, it also provides guidance on topics usually left unaddressed, namely, internal validation, continuous quality improvement, creating a healthy multidisciplinary environment, and redesigning care (including a specific supplemental section on a real-life example of how to design a dedicated space that can combine basic and complex diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in allergy).

Drug allergy desensitization is not a unique recipe

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Drug desensitization is the only therapeutic option for patients with drug allergies who need to receive the drugs they are allergic to, and it is especially critical in patients with an urgent need for chemotherapy, biologics, or antibiotics, where equally effective alternatives might not be available. However, drug desensitization is not a cookbook where anyone with no experience or specific training can find a general recipe. This review article will approach the singularities that make personalized and highly specialized care essential in this field.

RECENT FINDINGS

Drug desensitization needs to be personalized for each individual patient bearing in mind countless factors. Recent articles have tried to define the optimal resources and the most important factors to account for in personalization. However, drug desensitization is only a tool within the wider management pathway, and we will discuss recent findings in allergy delabelling in chemotherapy, biologics, and antibiotics.

SUMMARY

Risk-assessment, delabelling, and desensitization protocols, as a part of wider management pathways, can be adapted locally along with comprehensive and multifactorial risk-management strategies. These high-complexity and high-risk procedures, such as drug desensitization, need to be managed by expert allergists who can provide personalization, innovation, continuous improvement, research, and teaching in expert centres.

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.

Hypersensitivity reactions to chemotherapy: an EAACI Position Paper

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

Use of Rapid Drug Desensitization in Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Chemotherapy and Monoclonal Antibodies

Background:

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) allows first-line therapies in patients with immediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) to chemotherapeutic drugs (ChD) and monoclonal antibodies (mAb). Desensitization in delayed drug reactions has traditionally used slow protocols extending up to several weeks; RDD protocols have been scarcely reported.

Patients and Method:

We retrospectively analyzed the patients referred to the Allergy Department, who had experienced a delayed DHR (&gt; 6 h) related to a ChD or mAb and underwent an RDD protocol. The rate of successful administration of the offending drug and the presence of adverse reactions were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 93 RDDs were performed in 11 patients (including 6 men and 5 women, with a median age of 61 years). The primary DHR were maculopapular exanthema (MPE) (8), generalized delayed urticaria (1), MPE with pustulosis and facial edema (1), and facial edema with desquamative eczema (1). The meantime for the onset of symptoms was 3 days (range 1–16 days). RDD was performed using a protocol involving 8–13 steps, with temozolomide (25), bendamustine (4), rituximab (9), infliximab (24), gemcitabine (23), and docetaxel (8), within 4.6–6.5 h. Sixteen breakthrough reactions were reported during the RDD (17.2 %) in 5 patients; all were mild reactions including 11 delayed and 5 immediate reactions. All patients completed their treatment.

Conclusions:

RDD is a potentially safe and effective procedure in patients suffering from delayed reactions to ChD and mAb. It allows them to receive full treatment in a short period, thereby reducing time and hospital visits.

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.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologicals: An EAACI position paper

Biologicals are crucial targeted therapeutic agents in oncological, immunological, and inflammatory diseases, and their use in clinical practice is broadening. In recent years, the spread of Personalized Precision Medicine has facilitated a proliferation of new treatment options, especially biologicals. Consequently, biologicals are now among the drugs that most frequently cause hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). Patients can develop HSRs to these agents during the first-lifetime exposure or after repeated exposure, and these HSRs can be potentially life-threatening or limit therapeutic options. Despite the relatively high prevalence, the underlying mechanisms of these HSRs remain obscure, and the optimal management pathways are still a matter of discussion. In this Position Paper, the authors will provide evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and managing HSRs to biologicals. Additionally, the document defines unmet needs as an opportunity to shape future research.

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.

One-Dilution Rapid Desensitization Protocol to Chemotherapeutic and Biological Agents: A Five-Year Experience

BACKGROUND

Rapid drug desensitization (RDD) becomes a crucial procedure to allow treatment continuation in patients who suffer drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) to chemotherapeutic (CMT) and biological agents (BA).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a one-bag dilution protocol (1DP) with a conventional three-bag dilution protocol (3DP) for desensitization of patients with CMT or BA hypersensitivity.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with immediate DHRs to CMT or BA who underwent at least 1 RDD procedure in our department between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Demographical data, clinical history, skin tests, tryptase levels, and risk assessment were registered. The safety, tolerability, occurrence, and severity of breakthrough reactions (BTR) with 3DP and 1DP were compared.

RESULTS

After the allergy workup, 157 patients fulfilled criteria to undergo RDD (137 females, mean age: 60.44 ± 12.6 years). A total of 639 RDDs (543 CMT and 96 BA) were performed using 3DP in 205 (48 patients) and 1DP in 434 (109 patients). Almost all procedures (636) were completed successfully. No BTR occurred in the first RDD in 52% and 51% of the 3DP and 1DP, respectively. Most BTR were mild. Moderate-severe BTR occurred in 17% with 3DP and 9% with 1DP. There were no statistical differences between protocols regarding the rate and severity of BTR.

CONCLUSIONS

RDD with 1DP to CMT and BA has equivalent outcomes to a 3DP desensitization in a selected population of patients in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Moreover, 1DP reduces the time required for RDD and simplifies the logistics.

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.