Cetirizine versus diphenhydramine in the prevention of chemotherapy-related hypersensitivity reactions

Dexamethasone is non-inferior to antihistamine plus dexamethasone premedication in preventing ramucirumab plus nab-paclitaxel infusion-related reactions in gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

PURPOSE

Ramucirumab (RAM) is recommended as premedication with H1-receptor antagonists (H1RA) to prevent infusion-related reactions (IRRs). However, RAM is a human antibody with a low incidence of IRRs. We evaluated the noninferiority of non-H1RA (dexamethasone [DEX] alone) premedication to H1RA (plus DEX) premedication in terms of IRRs in patients with gastric cancer receiving RAM plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX).

METHODS

This was a noninferiority, multicenter, retrospective trial conducted in three Japanese centers to assess the incidence of IRRs in patients receiving RAM plus nab-PTX for gastric cancer between 2018 and 2023. Patients with gastric cancer receiving RAM plus nab-PTX were divided into groups with and without H1RA premedication. The incidence of IRRs was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were evaluated, with non-H1RA and H1RA premedications in 43 and 47 cases, respectively. After the first dose of RAM, IRRs were not observed in either group. IRRs during the overall doses were 0% for non-H1RA premedication and 2.1% for H1RA premedication (90% confidence interval (CI): -5.6%-1.3% for each comparison). The upper limit of the 90% CI (1.3%) did not exceed the noninferiority margin (Δ) of + 10% and therefore met the noninferiority criteria.

CONCLUSION

RAM plus nab-PTX for gastric cancer with DEX premedication may be possible without H1RA premedication.

Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study

PURPOSE

Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1).

CONCLUSION

Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Evaluating the efficacy of a premedication regimen including high-dose cetirizine in reduction of hypersensitivity reactions to paclitaxel: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) are a known adverse effect of paclitaxel, occurring in approximately 10% of patients, typically during the first or second infusion of the medication. Corticosteroids, histamine-1 and histamine-2 receptor antagonists are given prior to paclitaxel infusions to reduce the incidence of HSR. There are limited data that suggest administration of cetirizine given prior to a platinum infusion as secondary prophylaxis may reduce HSR rates.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a novel paclitaxel hypersensitivity prevention protocol including high-dose cetirizine administered 12 and 6 h prior to paclitaxel infusion on the rate of HSR compared to a historical control. The primary objective was the rate of HSR of any grade after the first cycle of paclitaxel. Secondary outcomes included grade of infusion reaction and incidence of severe HSR.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included for analysis in the cetirizine group and 124 in the control group. Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 37 (16.2%) patients in the overall population, and no statistical difference was observed between groups. (13.46% vs 18.55%; p = 0.23). Numerically more grade 3-4 HSRs occurred in the control group than the treatment group (30.77% vs 69.23; p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of cetirizine to paclitaxel infusions resulted in numerically lower rates of HSR and a reduction in severity of grade 3-4 HSRs. Future studies with more robust compliance data and a larger patient population would be needed to appropriately assess the efficacy of our novel treatment regimen.

Repurposing of H1-receptor antagonists (levo)cetirizine, (des)loratadine, and fexofenadine as a case study for systematic analysis of trials on clinicaltrials.gov using semi-automated processes with custom-coded software

To gain a comprehensive overview of the landscape of clinical trials for the H1-receptor antagonists (H1R antagonists) cetirizine, levocetirizine, loratadine, desloratadine, and fexofenadine and their potential use cases in drug repurposing (the use of well-known drugs outside the scope of the original medical indication), we analyzed trials from clincialtrials.gov using novel custom-coded software, which itself is also a key emphasis of this paper. To automate data acquisition from clincialtrials.gov via its API, data processing, and storage, we created custom software by leveraging a variety of open-source tools. Data were stored in a relational database and annotated facilitating a specially adapted web application. Through the data analysis, we identified use cases for repurposing and reviewed backgrounds and results in the scientific literature. Even though we found very few trials with published results for repurpose indications, extended literature research revealed some prominent use cases: Cetirizine seems promising in mitigating infusion-associated reactions and is also more effective than placebo in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Loratadine may be beneficial in the prophylaxis of G-CSF-related bone pain. In COVID-19, H1R antagonists may be helpful, but placebo-controlled scientific evidence is needed. For asthma, the effect of H1R antagonists only seems to be secondary by alleviating allergy symptoms. Our novel method to find potential use cases for repurposing of H1R antagonists allows for high automation, reduces human error, and was successful in revealing potential areas of interest. The software could be used for similar research questions and analyses in the future.

The Efficacy of Bepotastine Besilate Compared With Hydroxyzine Pamoate for Preventing Infusion Reactions to the First Dose of Rituximab in Patients With Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Protocol for a Phase II, Double-Blind, Multicenter Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, can cause infusion reactions (IRs), especially during the initial rituximab infusion therapy. Generally, patients are administered a histamine H1-receptor antagonist before the rituximab infusion, along with an antipyretic analgesic, to prevent or reduce IRs. Multiple retrospective case-control studies indicate that the second generation of histamine H1-receptor antagonists might be more effective than the first generation in suppressing IRs caused by the rituximab infusion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of first- and second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists for preventing IRs resulting from the initial infusion of rituximab in patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

METHODS

This is a phase II, double-blind, active-controlled randomized trial. It will be a multicenter study conducted across 3 facilities that aims to enroll a total of 40 patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who will receive their initial rituximab infusion. Participating patients will be administered hydroxyzine pamoate or bepotastine besilate, representing first- or second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists, respectively. This will be combined with 400-mg acetaminophen tablets taken approximately 30 minutes before the first infusion of rituximab. The primary end point of this trial is to assess severe IRs, equivalent to grade 2 or higher as defined by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0, that occur within a 4-hour period after the initiation of rituximab infusion. The secondary end points include assessing the severity of the initial IR, the maximum severity of the IR, and the duration between rituximab infusion initiation and the onset of the first IR within a 4-hour period. Additionally, the trial will evaluate histamine H1-receptor antagonist-induced drowsiness using the visual analogue scale, with each patient providing their individual response.

RESULTS

This study began with patient recruitment in April 2023, with 17 participants enrolled as of November 12, 2023. The anticipated study completion is set for February 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of oral first- and second-generation histamine H1-receptor antagonists in preventing IRs induced by the initial administration of rituximab. The findings from this study hold the potential to establish the rationale for a phase III study aimed at determining the standard premedication protocol for rituximab infusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs051220169; https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs051220169.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54882.

A Three-Step Taxane Titration Protocol Decreases Hypersensitivity Reactions During First and Second Exposures

INTRODUCTION

Patients receiving taxanes are at risk for developing hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) primarily during first and second lifetime exposures. Immediate HSRs require emergency care and can interfere with the continuation of preferred treatment. Although different approaches to slow titration have been used successfully for desensitization after HSR occurrence, there are no standardized recommendations for taxane titration to prevent HSRs.

PURPOSE

To determine if a gradual, three-step infusion rate titration decreases the rate and severity of immediate HSRs during first and second lifetime exposures to paclitaxel and docetaxel.

METHODS

We used a prospective, interventional design with historical comparisons to evaluate a sample of 222 first and second lifetime exposure paclitaxel and docetaxel infusions. The intervention was a three-step infusion rate titration provided at the initiation of first and second lifetime exposures. Ninety-nine titrated infusions were compared with 123 historical records of nontitrated infusions.

RESULTS

Compared with the nontitrated group (n = 123), the titrated group (n = 99) had significantly less HSRs (19% v 7%; P = .017). No significant difference in HSR severity was found between groups (P = 1.00). However, four nontitrated patients received epinephrine, and one required transfer to the emergency department (ED) because of reaction severity. In contrast, no titrated patients received epinephrine or required transfer to the ED. In the nontitrated group, seven patients did not complete their infusions versus one patient in the titrated group.

CONCLUSION

A standardized, three-step infusion rate titration prevented HSR occurrence. Significant issues affecting practice feasibility and sustainability were addressed.

Incidence and associated factors of cetuximab-induced hypersensitivity infusion reactions in 1392 cancer patients treated in four French areas: a possible association with Lyme disease?

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have observed an increased incidence of Cetuximab-induced hypersensitivity infusion reactions (CI-IRs) in the southeastern states of the USA. Tick's bites were suspected of generating cross-reactions between cetuximab and alpha-gal. This study aims was to describe the incidence and associated risk factors of CI-IRs, in the French areas chosen according to their Lyme disease incidence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients that received cetuximab infusion from January 2010 to June 2019 in 4 French areas with different Lyme disease incidence rates.

RESULTS

Of 1392 patients, 117 (8.4%) experienced a CI-IR, including 68 severe (grade 3 or 4) reactions (4.9%). This CI-IR incidence was significantly higher in the Lyme disease high-risk area than in the other areas (13.2% versus 7.1%, 8.1% and 6.4%; P = 0.016). Sex (P = 0.53), premedication (P = 0.91), primary cancer location (P = 0.46) and chemotherapy regimen type (P = 0.78) had no impact on CI-IR incidence in the overall population. In the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patient subgroup, CI-IRs were significantly more frequent in the high-risk area (16.4% versus 6.7%, 7.1% and 7.0%; P = 0.0015).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that patients treated in the French area with the highest incidence of Lyme disease are at a higher risk of CI-IRs.

Pre-medication protocols for the prevention of paclitaxel-induced infusion related reactions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylaxis against infusion-related reactions (IRR) from paclitaxel with steroids and antihistamines is a standard of care due to high rates of IRR. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively summarize the evidence behind various prophylaxis strategies.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched (1946 to May 14, 2021). The primary outcomes were Grade 3/4 IRR and any-grade IRR. Secondary outcomes included treatment delay or discontinuation and adverse events secondary to pre-medications.

RESULTS

Of the 1285 unique citations, 26 studies were selected: 11 studies for quantitative analysis and 15 studies for qualitative analysis. Studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies (n = 25-281). There was a non-significant benefit in favour of oral steroids starting 12 h prior to paclitaxel administration versus intravenous steroids immediately prior to paclitaxel administration for grade 3/4 IRRs, with a risk difference (RD) of 2% [95%CI 0 to 5%], any-grade IRR with a RD of 4% [95%CI: -1% to 9%] and treatment discontinuation with a RD of 1% [95%CI -1% to 2%]. For de-escalation strategies, a point-estimate for any-grade IRR was 0.44% [95% CI, 0 to 0.02, p = 0.98] and for grade 3/4 IRR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.07, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Although studies have high risk of bias and risk, differences between steroid routes of administration were small, there was a non-significant trend in favour of oral steroids. De-escalation strategies after two previous successful paclitaxel infusions have an overall low incidence rate of severe IRR and warrant further prospective clinical trials. Insufficient evidence remains to recommend for or against other interventions for the prevention of paclitaxel IRR.

A randomized double-blind feasibility study comparing cetirizine and diphenhydramine in the prevention of paclitaxel-associated infusion-related reactions: the PREMED-F1 study

Purpose

Cetirizine is a less sedative alternative to diphenhydramine for the prevention of infusion-related reactions (IRR) to paclitaxel. However, its use remains controversial. In this study, we assessed feasibility for a future definitive non-inferiority trial comparing cetirizine to diphenhydramine as premedication to prevent paclitaxel-related IRR.

Methods

This was a single-center randomized prospective feasibility study. Participants were paclitaxel-naive cancer patients scheduled to start paclitaxel chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg + oral placebo (control) or intravenous placebo + oral cetirizine 10 mg (intervention) for their first two paclitaxel treatments. The percentage of eligible patients completing a first paclitaxel treatment and the recruitment rate were assessed (feasibility outcomes). Drowsiness was measured at baseline and at selected time points using the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (SSS) (safety outcome). IRR events were also documented (efficacy outcome).

Results

Among 37 eligible patients, 27 were recruited and randomized (control 13; intervention 14) and 25 completed the study. The recruitment rate was 4.8 participants/month, meeting the primary feasibility target. Drowsiness was the main adverse effect associated with the premedication. The increase in drowsiness compared to baseline (ΔSSS) was greater in the diphenhydramine group compared to the cetirizine group (median ΔSSS 2 (IQR 3.25) vs median ΔSSS 0 (IQR 1), p < 0.01) when measured one hour after the premedication administration. One participant had an IRR and no unexpected serious adverse event occurred.

Conclusion

The trial methods were feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, and safety. Cetirizine was significantly less sedating than diphenhydramine. IRR were infrequent and a larger trial is warranted to confirm non-inferiority for IRR prevention.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04237090 (22.01.2020).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06734-4.

Intravenous Cetirizine vs Intravenous Diphenhydramine for the Prevention of Hypersensitivity Infusion Reactions: Results of an Exploratory Phase 2 Study

Pretreatment with antihistamines for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions is recommended for certain biologics and chemotherapies. Cetirizine is the first injectable second-generation antihistamine recently approved for acute urticaria. A randomized, exploratory phase 2 study evaluated intravenous (IV) cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg as pretreatment in patients receiving an anti-CD20 agent or paclitaxel. In the overall population (N = 34) and an elderly subgroup (n = 21), IV cetirizine was as effective as IV diphenhydramine in preventing infusion reactions (primary outcome) and associated with less sedation at all time points, a shorter infusion center stay, and fewer treatment-related adverse events.

Prevention of Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: Prescreening and Premedication

Drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR) are heterogeneous in their pathomechanisms, clinical presentation, severity, and outcomes. Novel DHR mechanisms, phenotypes, and endotypes have been described. The key to prevention from further exposure to the culprit drugs involves correct identification of the putative drug through a combination of in vitro and/or in vivo tests, accurate drug allergy labeling and reporting, and electronic decision support systems within electronic medical records to prevent future accidental prescribing. Prescreening and premedication, the focus of this review, may be a useful adjunct to preventive measures in certain situations. After an index immediate drug hypersensitivity reaction, prescreening may be useful in perioperative anaphylaxis, and iodinated (ICM) and gadolinium-based contrast media (GCM) where the culprit and potential alternative agents are skin tested. In certain nonimmediate DHR, pharmacogenomic prescreening may be used before prescribing high-risk drugs (eg, carbamazepine and allopurinol) where specific human-leukocyte antigen genotypes are associated with severe cutaneous adverse reactions. Premedication with antihistamine and systemic corticosteroids is another therapeutic strategy to prevent infusion reactions for certain biologicals and chemotherapeutic agents, in cases of perioperative anaphylaxis, ICM and GCM DHR, and clonal mast cell disorders. Rapid drug desensitization may also be used to induce temporary tolerance in situations where there are limited alternative drugs.

Benzhydryl Amines: Synthesis and Their Biological Perspective

The current review describes the recent progress in the chemistry and biology of the benzhydryl amines where the central carbon atom is directly attached to the nitrogen atom of one ring and which have published in the last five years (2015-2019). Both metal and metal-free racemic and asymmetric synthetic approaches along with their activities as anti-leishmanial, antiviral, antibacterial, and anti-aromatase and other miscellaneous properties are discussed.

CSACI position statement: Newer generation H1-antihistamines are safer than first-generation H1-antihistamines and should be the first-line antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and urticaria

Oral H₁-antihistamines (AHs) are the most commonly used therapy to treat allergic rhinitis and chronic urticaria. Older, first-generation AHs (e.g. diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine) have significant and common side effects including sedation, impairment with decreased cognitive function, poor sleep quality, dry mouth, dizziness, and orthostatic hypotension. These drugs have also been found to result in death from accidents, intentional or unintentional overdoses, and sudden cardiac death. The unfavourable risk–benefit profile of first-generation AHs led to the development of newer, less-sedating second- and third-generation AHs, which first became available in Canada in the 1980s. High-quality trials have proven that newer generation AHs are superior in safety compared to older first-generation AHs. On average, they have improved potency and efficacy. Second- and third-generation AHs are the recommended first-line treatment for mild allergic rhinitis and acute and chronic urticaria. Despite this evidence, older first-generation AHs continue to be over-utilized because of their over-the-counter (OTC) status and long history of use. The Canadian Society of Allergy Clinical Immunology (CSACI) recommends that newer generation AHs should be preferred over first-generation AHs for the treatment of allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and urticaria. To promote this recommendation, education of health professionals and the public is necessary. Further, given the dangers of older first-generation AHs, we believe they should be used only as a last resort with eventual consideration given to having them only available behind the counter in pharmacies.