Nationwide pharmacovigilance data for cetuximab-induced anaphylaxis and predictive model validation using prospective specific IgE detection

Biomarkers of immediate drug hypersensitivity

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

Phase I study targeting newly diagnosed grade 4 astrocytoma with bispecific antibody armed T cells (EGFR BATs) in combination with radiation and temozolomide

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the safety, feasibility, and immunologic responses of treating grade 4 astrocytomas with multiple infusions of anti-CD3 x anti-EGFR bispecific antibody (EGFRBi) armed T cells (EGFR BATs) in combination with radiation and chemotherapy.

METHODS

This phase I study used a 3 + 3 dose escalation design to test the safety and feasibility of intravenously infused EGFR BATs in combination with radiation and temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with newly diagnosed grade 4 astrocytomas (AG4). After finding the feasible dose, an expansion cohort with unmethylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) tumors received weekly EGFR BATs without TMZ.

RESULTS

The highest feasible dose was 80 × 109 EGFR BATs without dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in seven patients. We could not escalate the dose because of the limited T-cell expansion. There were no DLTs in the additional cohort of three patients with unmethylated MGMT tumors who received eight weekly infusions of EGFR BATs without TMZ. EGFR BATs infusions induced increases in glioma specific anti-tumor cytotoxicity by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (p < 0.03) and NK cell activity (p < 0.002) ex vivo, and increased serum concentrations of IFN-γ (p < 0.03), IL-2 (p < 0.007), and GM-CSF (p < 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Targeting AG4 with EGFR BATs at the maximum feasible dose of 80 × 109, with or without TMZ was safe and induced significant anti-tumor-specific immune responses. These results support further clinical trials to examine the efficacy of this adoptive cell therapy in patients with MGMT-unmethylated GBM.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03344250.

Immune Reactions in Major Types of Oncological Treatment

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

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.

Validation of an anti-α-Gal IgE fluoroenzyme-immunoassay for the screening of patients at risk of severe anaphylaxis to cetuximab

BACKGROUND

The link between immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) following the first cetuximab infusion and the IgE sensitization against anti-galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) is now well-established. An automated Fluoroenzyme-Immunoassay (FEIA) is available and may facilitate the screening of patients with anti-α-Gal IgE before treatment.

METHODS

This study aimed to evaluate its performances as compared to a previously validated anti-cetuximab IgE ELISA, using 185 samples from two previously studied cohorts.

RESULTS

Despite 21.1% of discrepancies between the two techniques, FEIA discriminated better positive patients and similarly negative ones with a ≥ 0.525 kU_A/L threshold. Sensitivity was 87.5% for both tests, specificity was better for FEIA (96.3% vs ELISA: 82.1%). FEIA had a higher positive likelihood ratio (23.9 vs ELISA: 4.89) and a similar negative likelihood ratio (0.13 vs ELISA: 0.15). In our population, the risk of severe HSR following a positive test was higher with FEIA (56.7% vs ELISA: 19.6%) and similar following a negative test (0.7% vs ELISA: 0.8%).

CONCLUSION

Although the predictive value of the IgE screening before cetuximab infusion remains discussed, this automated commercial test can identify high-risk patients and is suitable for routine use in laboratories. It could help avoiding cetuximab-induced HSR by a systematic anti-α-Gal IgE screening before treatment.